Facebook under pressure to counter anti vax nutter groups

[JoeB131]

I’m retired sort of Joe, living off the fruits of my labors. Retired at 55. I must say I am living very well, thank you.

Oh, is that what you call "collecting a fake disability"?

 

[gipper]

I’m retired sort of Joe, living off the fruits of my labors. Retired at 55. I must say I am living very well, thank you.

Oh, is that what you call "collecting a fake disability"?

That’s the ticket....for you.

 

[JoeB131]

That’s the ticket....for you.

Naw, man, just because you weigh 500 lbs and the government calls that a disability so you sit home with your fat little piggy hands typing on a keyboard about how the government is out to get you just makes you a little sad.

 

[fncceo]

Girls! Girls! You're both pretty!

 

[gipper]

Girls! Girls! You're both pretty!

I’ve never been called pretty before, but thank you.

 

[Papageorgio]

Facebook under pressure to halt rise of anti-vaccination groups

Facebook is under pressure to stem the rise of anti-vaccination groups spreading false information about the dangers of life-saving vaccines while peddling unfounded alternative treatments such as high doses of vitamin C.
So-called “anti-vaxxers” are operating on Facebook in closed groups, where members have to be approved in advance. By barring access to others, they are able to serve undiluted misinformation without challenge.

I dont think they are calling for these idiots to get banned.It looks more like opening up these echo chambers.There is documented evidence of public health scares and it is in all our interests to shed light on these cultists.

Let’s limit free speech, that is worse.

 

[JoeB131]

Let’s limit free speech, that is worse.

Tell that to the mom of a baby who died because her moron neighbor listened to anti-vax crazies and didn't immunize her kid, and her baby caught measles from him.

The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact.

 

[fncceo]

Let’s limit free speech, that is worse.

Tell that to the mom of a baby who died because her moron neighbor listened to anti-vax crazies and didn't immunize her kid, and her baby caught measles from him.

The Constitution is not a Suicide Pact.

Many types of speech can be limited and fall into different categories. In what category do you believe anti-vaccination rhetoric belongs?

 

[JoeB131]

Many types of speech can be limited and fall into different categories. In what category do you believe anti-vaccination rhetoric belongs?

The same as shouting fire in a crowded theater. Not protected.

 

[fncceo]

Many types of speech can be limited and fall into different categories. In what category do you believe anti-vaccination rhetoric belongs?

The same as shouting fire in a crowded theater. Not protected.

The phrase, 'shouting fire in a crowded theater', was coined for the decision of Schenck vs US of 1919 if reference to the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft in WWI. The court ruled the speech in opposition to America's participation in that war was not protected. The judgement prescribed that such speech presented a 'clear and present danger' to the US.

The ruling was partially overturned in Brandenburg v Ohio of 1969 where the court ruled that it only applied to speech that would invoke imminent lawless action (such an invocation to a riot). So even speech considered reckless or inflammatory is protected unless you can prove that such speech would invoke imminent lawless action.

There is protection of speech that might at sometime in the future lead to a lawless action -- hard to prove in the case of immunization. Anti-vaxxing advocates might equally claim that mandatory immunization itself is a lawless action.

Banning speech is not something we should take lightly in America.

 

[JoeB131]

The phrase, 'shouting fire in a crowded theater', was coined for the decision of Schenck vs US of 1919 if reference to the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft in WWI. The court ruled the speech in opposition to America's participation in that war was not protected. The judgement prescribed that such speech presented a 'clear and present danger' to the US.

The ruling was partially overturned in Brandenburg v Ohio of 1969 where the court ruled that it only applied to speech that would invoke imminent lawless action (such an invocation to a riot). So even speech considered reckless or inflammatory is protected unless you can prove that such speech would invoke imminent lawless action.

There is protection of speech that might at sometime in the future lead to a lawless action -- hard to prove in the case of immunization. Anti-vaxxing advocates might equally claim that mandatory immunization itself is a lawless action.

Banning speech is not something we should take lightly in America.

I don't take it lightly. Children will die because their parents take these charlatans seriously?

 

[Blues Man]

Yes the left is very good at limiting free speech rights.

How many kids have to die because we give nuts free access to the airwaves?

If they're not your kids they are not your responsibility

 

[OldLady]

Yes the left is very good at limiting free speech rights.

How many kids have to die because we give nuts free access to the airwaves?

If they're not your kids they are not your responsibility

That's pretty selfish.

 

[fncceo]

The phrase, 'shouting fire in a crowded theater', was coined for the decision of Schenck vs US of 1919 if reference to the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft in WWI. The court ruled the speech in opposition to America's participation in that war was not protected. The judgement prescribed that such speech presented a 'clear and present danger' to the US.

The ruling was partially overturned in Brandenburg v Ohio of 1969 where the court ruled that it only applied to speech that would invoke imminent lawless action (such an invocation to a riot). So even speech considered reckless or inflammatory is protected unless you can prove that such speech would invoke imminent lawless action.

There is protection of speech that might at sometime in the future lead to a lawless action -- hard to prove in the case of immunization. Anti-vaxxing advocates might equally claim that mandatory immunization itself is a lawless action.

Banning speech is not something we should take lightly in America.

I don't take it lightly. Children will die because their parents take these charlatans seriously?

Children die every single day, typically because someone did something stupid. You can't ban stupidity.

Think of it as Social Darwinism ... ultimately good for the species.

 

[fncceo]

Yes the left is very good at limiting free speech rights.

How many kids have to die because we give nuts free access to the airwaves?

If they're not your kids they are not your responsibility

That's pretty selfish.

Ultimately...

Is not a legitimate argument for stripping anyone of their Constitutional Rights.

 

[OldLady]

The phrase, 'shouting fire in a crowded theater', was coined for the decision of Schenck vs US of 1919 if reference to the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft in WWI. The court ruled the speech in opposition to America's participation in that war was not protected. The judgement prescribed that such speech presented a 'clear and present danger' to the US.

The ruling was partially overturned in Brandenburg v Ohio of 1969 where the court ruled that it only applied to speech that would invoke imminent lawless action (such an invocation to a riot). So even speech considered reckless or inflammatory is protected unless you can prove that such speech would invoke imminent lawless action.

There is protection of speech that might at sometime in the future lead to a lawless action -- hard to prove in the case of immunization. Anti-vaxxing advocates might equally claim that mandatory immunization itself is a lawless action.

Banning speech is not something we should take lightly in America.

I don't take it lightly. Children will die because their parents take these charlatans seriously?

Children die every single day, typically because someone did something stupid. You can't ban stupidity.

Think of it as Social Darwinism ... ultimately good for the species.

That would work if the anti-vaxxers were only exposing their own children. But they are exposing children too young or too sick to be immunized, who may have VERY smart parents.

 

[OldLady]

Yes the left is very good at limiting free speech rights.

How many kids have to die because we give nuts free access to the airwaves?

If they're not your kids they are not your responsibility

That's pretty selfish.

Ultimately...

Is not a legitimate argument for stripping anyone of their Constitutional Rights.

I disagree. Heartily.

However, I am not seeing where Facebook is considering that. They might take the anti-vaxxer groups off recommended sites or knock them further down the search list, but FB isn't going to ban them or delete their zany claims.

 

[fncceo]

The phrase, 'shouting fire in a crowded theater', was coined for the decision of Schenck vs US of 1919 if reference to the defendant's speech in opposition to the draft in WWI. The court ruled the speech in opposition to America's participation in that war was not protected. The judgement prescribed that such speech presented a 'clear and present danger' to the US.

The ruling was partially overturned in Brandenburg v Ohio of 1969 where the court ruled that it only applied to speech that would invoke imminent lawless action (such an invocation to a riot). So even speech considered reckless or inflammatory is protected unless you can prove that such speech would invoke imminent lawless action.

There is protection of speech that might at sometime in the future lead to a lawless action -- hard to prove in the case of immunization. Anti-vaxxing advocates might equally claim that mandatory immunization itself is a lawless action.

Banning speech is not something we should take lightly in America.

I don't take it lightly. Children will die because their parents take these charlatans seriously?

Children die every single day, typically because someone did something stupid. You can't ban stupidity.

Think of it as Social Darwinism ... ultimately good for the species.

That would work if the anti-vaxxers were only exposing their own children. But they are exposing children too young or too sick to be immunized, who may have VERY smart parents.

Social Darwinism isn't just about intelligence.

 

[fncceo]

Yes the left is very good at limiting free speech rights.

How many kids have to die because we give nuts free access to the airwaves?

If they're not your kids they are not your responsibility

That's pretty selfish.

Ultimately...

Is not a legitimate argument for stripping anyone of their Constitutional Rights.

I disagree. Heartily.

And I fully support your right to say so.

 

[JoeB131]

If they're not your kids they are not your responsibility

If the little bastard infects other kids, it is..

Obviously, you don't get the concept of herd immunity.

Think of it as Social Darwinism ... ultimately good for the species.

Funny, Hitler probably thought the same thing when he was turning the Jews into lampshades.