Should Anti-vaxxers be held legally accountable for the misinformation they spread?

Let me know when every single person fits a preconceived physical makeup, that can tolerate the disruption of their autoimmune system.

Since the CDC, the Almighty for some people, has changed direction and recommendations a number of times. So they should be held accountable for any incorrect info they shared, according the the OP. Go for it!

I'd be interested in knowing just who would be considered the ultimate judge on what is actually 'misinformation', since the information on COVID is ever evolving. Some apparently feel they have the right to punish people that think differently then they do.

 

Not really.

 

I was actually thinking
ESS of Tucker although it would be sweet justice and more of people like Joseph Mercola and even Alex Jones who are spreading the misinformation to profit themselves

 

And talking of Alex Jones I had forgotten until now about the Sandy Hook lawsuit

https://www.theguardian.com/law/202...ook-school-shooting-case-supreme-court-appeal

 

Well tell me the bits you are having trouble with and I will try to explain it further

I will even keep to monosyllables

 

Systematic reviews of evidence

That is the ultimate test

 

I was actually being intentionally generic (I don't want to be sued ). My point stands that I don't think anyone could come close to demonstrating a direct link between what is reported and their individual clinical outcomes. Someone who is (or purports to be) a medical professional probably needs to take more care, though even then I'd expect that to be more of a regulatory rather than legal issue. I'd suggest that anyone who bases their medical decisions exclusively on the word of random TV presenters has only themselves to blame if it doesn't turn out well for them.

 

Alex Jones has manages to spin out the Sandy Hook lawsuit for years but he is not getting a lot of sympathy from the court - I think if it goes against him it might set the precedent

 

And that proves intent?

So glad you aren't at the helm, the idea that people have opinions and ideas that don't match yours, and are just as valid from their POV, would likely cause an accident.

 

And yet here I am arguing that it is better for this to be settled in court than to have some tech company be the arbiter

Oh! And a systematic review would show where the evidence is and whether the person was talking from a fact based view or blowing smoke from their ……….nose

 

Once more, the idea that you support 'law suits' over people's opinions, pretty much says that you wish to penalize people who do not think like you.

The cost of defending one's self, both in time, money and stress, for an opinion, is nothing more than attempt to disguise tyranny. How about people promote lawsuits against people who support tyranny?

 

Is that not what is happening now in any event? Devin Nunes has just tried again to sue Maddox for defamation, Jones is being sued for spreading lies about Sandy Hook, Tucker weaseled out of being sued when his lawyers declared it was just entertainment

And MTG has just been banned from Twitter for breaching it’s Covid misinformation rules

 

I couldn't care less what happens to people who get paid to share their opinions.

You did not limit your statement to those who profit from their opinions. You therefore included the average person, and think that penalizing them for sharing their opinions is a good idea.

It's ideas as such that are in conflict with how people were treated who believed the world was round at one time. And IMO, it's pretty much rock bottom horrifying that you actually think it's a good idea. Why not just seize any assets they have and stone them? Would that satisfy your idea of how people with different POV should be treated?

 

MTG made the mistake of telling the truth on Twitter.

 

How about pro vaccers who spread false info.?
How about anyone who works for cnn?
How about Saki? Hell, Xoe for that matter. All his blatant lies. Oh wait, with his state of mind he may not realize he’s lying

 

Which option for "no one can be completely trusted to know/tell the truth"?

And BTW- anyone can try to sue anyone for anything in the US. So if you think someone is spreading disinfo and they should be sued, then do it.

 

It begs the question are you doing so in YOUR country and how?

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/118/16/e2024850118


In 2017, excess deaths and years of life lost in the United States represent a larger annual loss of life than that associated with the COVID-19 epidemic in 2020.

 

Can't vote in your poll because you didn't specify who would be the misinformation police or how they would go about figuring out what is misinformation and what is not. I'm assuming you mean the left would be the misinformation police, you know, the very same left who are guilty of misinformation themselves and issuing confusing guidelines that often seem to conflict and, no, I'm not talking about evolving science.

 

Well they can since Australia has never enshrined freedom of speech as a right in their country.

 

That's the thing....there is a blatant pattern going on now. Those that are getting infected and dying are now primarily MAGA folks, or at the very least lean that way. That right there is the problem. We even saw this on election day, when Repub voters waited till election day to vote whereas Dems voters voted by mail. Patterns instigated and fueled by the misinformation and partisan rhetoric of right-wing media.

There are a lot of things on our national plate to worry about right now. If the pattern continues, the WH will need to address it in some way.

 

Hmmmm there was silenced on his end.

 

Hmmm. Interesting question. With one exception I'd say no. Much better to financially penalize them instead i.e. change the law so that if you refuse to vaccinate then get ill from a vaccine preventable disease your insurance doesn't cover hospitalization expenses. Let them pay for the privilege of being anti-vaxers.

The one exception might be egregiously incorrect claims made by anti-vaxers about specific products.

I suppose its possible Pfizer et al might in some circumstances be able to sue specific anti-vaxxers over public claims that defame their products. Kind of like Dominion and their current lawsuits against 'certain unnamed people' who made what Dominion have stated are egregiously false allegations about their products which have damaged their brand and therefore potential profits.

It would require some very specific allegations and damaging comments though. Perhaps those who actually publish pseudo the scientific reports which make grossly exaggerated claims based about vaccines and use fraudulent or erroneous data to do it. Most anti-vaxers however just mindlessly parrot whatever claims they read on-line and then re-circulate it, they don't actually create anything. (For that matter most of them wouldn't recognize legitimate medical research if it jumped up up and bit them on the ass.)

 

Why not hold other accountable for the misinformation they give about the vaccine too? I mean they first advertised it in the 90% effective, then 70 then 50. Why can’t we sue them for misinformation?

 

Seriously. You people are out here screaming about the freedom of speech of individuals yet we have government officials that can’t decide how effective the virus is and constantly change their stats. Then they’ll tell you it came from bats, then it was created. Or how about the side effects found after it was released? Was not knowing all the side effects misinformation? Why aren’t you advocating for their liability? Bunch of hypocrites