The_Metatron wrote:I think you're confusing freedom of speech with freedom to deceive. This law is aimed squarely at false advertising.

willhud9 wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

willhud9 wrote:Essentially in the case of anti-abortion propaganda it should be legal for a website to exist that says abortions are dangerous, etc. but it should be illegal for a group of people to advertise such warnings via television, radio, newspaper, etc.

But when you start regulating the internet as you would television, radio, and newspaper you open up a huge can of worms and a lot of issues.

Why? The only difference is the transmission media.

Because unlike television, radio, and newspaper the internet is a place of free speech. If you start regulating what is appropriate speech you set precedent for future leaders to say: Saying anything socialistic online is punishable by jail time or heavy fines. Blogs, and personal opinion sites becomes restricted, etc.

It is a serious abridgement on speech rights. The internet must remain public. It must remain a center for public speech no matter how toxic said speech is.

I think people who deny the Holocaust are idiotic, but I will defend their right to hold that opinion and believe laws that make Holocaust denial illegal to be nothing more than thought crime.

The same principle applies here. Either you grant freedom of speech, your you impose arbitrary restrictions which make the freedom of speech incredibly flimsy and not really a freedom at all.

For example, it is not illegal for me to stand in a park and stating my opinions, or even lying in public. I could go up to someone and say, "Abortion causes cervical cancer" with no repercussions and that should be how it should be. Because if you restrict that the government can decide at a later to restrict more innocuous things based on whims. No thank you.

Willie71 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Willie71 wrote:

This worked with creationism or intelligent design. The courts are more corrupt now though. Risky business.

Not quite, the courts ruled that TEACHING creationism or intelligent design in public schools violated the 1st amendment since it established that both of those things are religious teachings, not scientific teachings. The court did not rule that creationism or intelligent design is illegal or false though. It simply said that for public schools it violates the establishment clause. Granted the ruling in Dover vs Kitzmiller was a landmark for science against woo, but still, the courts did not rule that all creationism or intelligent design is false.

The misrepresentation of science to advocate against abortion should be illegal.

What does that mean exactly? Punishable by what? A fine? It restricts speech. If I held the factually incorrect opinion that abortion caused cervical cancer I have the freedom to do so and the freedom to share that opinion with whomever I want. The exchange of information is up to the listener of information to actually discern if what I shared with them is factual.

Clinics that misrepresent scientific studies to force women to not get abortions are unethical. Pro-life clinics that lie to their clients should be shut down because that is false practice. But websites? If the website is not selling anything than it is just an opinion. Should WebMD be shut down because it says I am dying whenever I put in my symptoms or should I take with a grain of salt what I find from an internet source and not my general practitioner?

At what point do we hold the individual accountable for their own intake of outside information?

Presenting an opinion or religious teaching needs full disclosure that it is a religious teaching.

I would disagree with this on the basis of my previous statement. At what point do we hold people accountable for their own intake of outside information? Do I need some elite body to force people to tell me what is "fact" and what is "fiction" or can I be accountable and realize I need to do my own research and formulate my own conclusions based on said research?

If someone tells me the earth is flat because of Biblical quotes and because of his warped view of science and I am suckered into accepting that as fact without research that is on me not the deluded religious fellow.

The courts ruled that intelligent design and creationism are not science, and therefore cannot be taught as science. Same principle can be used regarding abortion teaching.

In public schools i.e. government property where they have the ability to regulate curriculum and ensure secularism.

But in public, the government cannot silence or make a statement on whether or not religious claims are factual or not. The courts did not rule that intelligent design and creationism are not science. The courts ruled that the premise of both of them are religious in nature and that as such cannot be taught in a secular science classroom. They did not address whether or not intelligent design was factual or not, although the court case did do a good job debunking many appeals to credulity brought forth by the Discover Institute.

willhud9 wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

willhud9 wrote:Essentially in the case of anti-abortion propaganda it should be legal for a website to exist that says abortions are dangerous, etc. but it should be illegal for a group of people to advertise such warnings via television, radio, newspaper, etc.

But when you start regulating the internet as you would television, radio, and newspaper you open up a huge can of worms and a lot of issues.

Why? The only difference is the transmission media.

Because unlike television, radio, and newspaper the internet is a place of free speech. If you start regulating what is appropriate speech you set precedent for future leaders to say: Saying anything socialistic online is punishable by jail time or heavy fines. Blogs, and personal opinion sites becomes restricted, etc.

It is a serious abridgement on speech rights. The internet must remain public. It must remain a center for public speech no matter how toxic said speech is.

I think people who deny the Holocaust are idiotic, but I will defend their right to hold that opinion and believe laws that make Holocaust denial illegal to be nothing more than thought crime.

The same principle applies here. Either you grant freedom of speech, your you impose arbitrary restrictions which make the freedom of speech incredibly flimsy and not really a freedom at all.

For example, it is not illegal for me to stand in a park and stating my opinions, or even lying in public. I could go up to someone and say, "Abortion causes cervical cancer" with no repercussions and that should be how it should be. Because if you restrict that the government can decide at a later to restrict more innocuous things based on whims. No thank you. ...

The Socialist government's proposal seeks to criminalise any websites that deliberately mislead, intimidate or "exert psychological or moral pressure" on a woman seeking information about terminating a pregnancy, with punishment of up to two years in prison and a €30,000 fine.

Byron wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:I think you're confusing freedom of speech with freedom to deceive. This law is aimed squarely at false advertising.

If it's targeted solely at false advertising, I'd have no problem with it, since the thing targeted would be the act of fraud, not speech: but false advertising requires lying about a product in order to bilk customers. If there's no product (including services), it's punishing speech.

The_Metatron wrote:No, I'm not down with that at all. That permits deception so long as no goods or services change hands.

This law targets those who would manipulate others through deception. Advertising telephone numbers to someone who can help with a problem, and delivering something other than that advertised help, for example.

Byron wrote:Willie71, people are already banned from misrepresenting themselves as doctors, under laws protecting professional titles, and fraud statutes. They're likewise liable for negligence if they cause harm with ill-founded treatment. I certainly don't have a problem with this, and I doubt anyone else posting here does, either.

The proposed law goes much further:-

The Socialist government's proposal seeks to criminalise any websites that deliberately mislead, intimidate or "exert psychological or moral pressure" on a woman seeking information about terminating a pregnancy, with punishment of up to two years in prison and a €30,000 fine.

Not only does it ban deception, it bans "psychological or moral pressure," a vague category that could, depending on the mood of a court, be interpreted to penalize most any organization that attempts to persuade women not to terminate their pregnancies.

Teague wrote:Why is it ok to let bullshitter carry on with their bullshit then? The anti-abortion people, for example, have no leg to stand on. The Nazi's don't either. Not sure what benefit they provide for humanity. Why let them coerce people or bully people and then suffer no consequences for it?

laklak wrote:One's attitude to any particular petard depends, in large part, on whether you're the hoister or the hoistee. This is another example of why it's important to be very careful what you wish for. Imagine, if you will, a country where an orange-haired demagogue gains power, and decides that "psychological or moral pressure" includes passing out birth control literature.

willhud9 wrote:Yes but anti-fraud is not the same as regulating blogs and opinion based websites.

An anti-abortion propaganda website is not selling anything but exchanging ideas. The exchange of ideas is protected speech.

A woman's health center that does not perform abortions because they believe it is not moral is also not illegal. Businesses have the right to provide or not provide services.

A woman's health center that does not perform abortions and lies to clients about the risks of abortion is malpractice. That is already covered under law.

Regulating said clinic's website makes sense, regulating random propaganda sites does not. People need to be accountable for the intake of information. The government should not have to hold people's hands when it comes to accepting or rejecting what they read on the internet.

Willie71 wrote:

willhud9 wrote:Yes but anti-fraud is not the same as regulating blogs and opinion based websites.

An anti-abortion propaganda website is not selling anything but exchanging ideas. The exchange of ideas is protected speech.

A woman's health center that does not perform abortions because they believe it is not moral is also not illegal. Businesses have the right to provide or not provide services.

A woman's health center that does not perform abortions and lies to clients about the risks of abortion is malpractice. That is already covered under law.

Regulating said clinic's website makes sense, regulating random propaganda sites does not. People need to be accountable for the intake of information. The government should not have to hold people's hands when it comes to accepting or rejecting what they read on the internet.

The website needs a disclaimer that it's not medical information, but spiritual information. Much like the ads for supplements in magazines.