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

Anti-vaccination disinformation is feeding a lot of vaccine hesitancy and that is costing lives. So it begs a question - should they be held accountable - especially if they know it is misinformation?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/07/fox-news-tucker-carlson-vaccine-lawsuit.html

In these days of rampant and flagrant misinformation we are essentially relying on big tech companies to try to enforce honesty. Perhaps it is time and beyond time that responsibility went back to the courts by making sure that actions have consequences. Knowingly spread misinformation because it increases viewership and therefore profits or because it helps you sell whatever snake oil product you tested on your neighbour’s dog and surely people should be able to get redress for being misled. Conversely this may lead to restriction of the American first amendment right to “free speech”

 

I have little doubt that FauxNoise will use the "entertainment" defense in any lawsuit that exposes the nefarious disinformation that they spew.

They also have sufficient funds to bribe judges and juries.

So while I agree they should be sued the outcome is not a foregone conclusion that they will be held accountable.

 

It would be pretty delicious though if it worked

 

Seems no one is interested in addressing anti vaxxer misinformation

 

I read the poll this morning. I didn't reply because you get kind of worked up about this issue. No offense. I just don't agree with you.

 

Yes, get that insufferable frat boy for the entire Swanson fortune as well

 

It's a hard leap to prove "bad" or "malicious" intent. In addition, you would have to prove cause and effect.

 

Maybe people aren’t interested in your brand of authoritarianism. I think the poster above exposed the flaws in your thinking. Do yourself a favor, and look up Laws of the Instrument.

 

I am actually suggesting it goes back to the courts instead of being in the hands of a few people

 

I am hinky on this. the biggest problem is that assertion that Fox intended people to rely on them. Its precisely the opposite of what we as consumers of news and opinion are taught to do. Check several sources for our news, think critically about what we are reading etc. Its really not that hard. All these viewers had to do was switch the channel to another network, read a newspaper, or talk to their own doctor. You can't prove that Fox did not expect more of them. Its a choice to refuse to learn, refuse to question, refuse to think. Being too stupid or lazy to seek out more than one news source when there are so obviously disparate narratives on an issue with this much coverage and importance represents a stubborn and foolish rejection of common sense that means you are not willing to make the least independent gesture towards your own safety. Are we no longer supposed to do our own due diligence by checking out the veracity of what we are told?

 

On what constitutional grounds would this end up in a court?

 

.

The ultimate cultural marxist fantasy = crucify the anti-vaxers.

.

 

They did successfully argue that one of the most watched conservative (and I use that term loosely) entertainment host Tucker Carlson is unable to be sued for outright lies because no reasonable person would believe him.

I doubt they would hold anyone accountable if they let the level of propaganda he spews go. Conservatism is a natural part of human nature but what the right has become and endorsed… will end this nation.

 

Oh! You just reminded me of what's her name? Argh!!! Remember the woman that went to court and said something about "no reasonable person would believe her lies about election fraud" or something like that? What is her name?

ETA: Sidney Powell

Pro-Trump lawyer says ‘no reasonable person’ would believe her election lies

In a motion to dismiss a complaint by the large US and Canadian voting machine company Dominion, lawyers for Sidney Powell argued that elaborate conspiracies she laid out on television and radio last November while simultaneously suing to overturn election results in four states constituted legally protected first amendment speech.

“No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact,” argued lawyers for Powell, a former federal prosecutor from Texas who caught Trump’s attention through her involvement in the defense of his former national security adviser Michael Flynn.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/23/sidney-powell-trump-election-fraud-claims

 

It is almost like they are calling the people that listen to them complete idiots… to their face…

 

Didn't really need the word "almost" there.

However, I think this might be a brick wall Bowerbird's plan might hit against.

 

Free speech doesn't include fraud, libel and calumny. Those things should be stifled, like murder and thievery. It's how we have civilization

 

I will admit to that and it is because I have seen the tragedies from lack of vaccination

Pertussis
Epiglottitis
Rotavirus gastritis
Meningococcus and meningococcal septicaemia
Post measles encephalitis
And Tetanus

To name but a few

So - yes to spare people ending in ICU I wil very very strongly advocate FOR vaccines and will become more than a little cross when I find people spreading misinformation

 

How are “we” crucifying them if they are telling the truth? This will not affect people who have legitimate concerns based on legitimate evidence

 

Sorry but it is beautifully laid out in the OP

 

I've been saying this from the start. You cannot intentionally spread false information that kills people. Eventually this will correctly be recognized as reckless negligence at best, and possibly 3rd degree murder.

And that goes for web sites like this one. The legal wheels have been turning for a year now. There will be hell to pay,

 

Everyone is responsible for the statements they make but I think it is a long stretch to directly link specific individual harm to a set of statements on a TV show. I mean, you're talking about America so people can (and probably will) sue for literally anything but I'm not convinced that is either viable or helpful in this case. It's perfectly possible to highlight the misinformation without going to court. Of course, there isn't any money to be made out of that.

 

Or pro-vaxxer misinformation.


https://mobile.twitter.com/SebGorka/status/1424603849952829442

 

Courts are the last place to decide which science is right.

 

if it's intentional misinformation, yes, but sadly some on the right actually believe their nonsense, and if they don't, it's hard to prove

I believe the government dietary recommendations are wrong, I believe that doctors fearing being sued is why they still recommend that diet, even when they know other diets would be better for patients, so can be a slippery slope