YouTube Demonetizes Anti-Vaccine Channels: “Dangerous and Harmful” Content

[Lomasexual]

This example isn't a speech issue. What you describe here is something that is already illegal because it is akin to a snake oil salesman. I believe there is a case going on now or maybe the guy was already found guilty. A guy was some kind of whack job herbal healer and he had some young kid, who had diabetes, stop taking his insulin, replaced it with some herbal brew, and the kid died. Again, not a speech issue.

If an anti-vaxxer starts pushing to get chlorine injections rather than a vaccination, then yes that is criminal, but it isn't a speech issue.

Can you elaborate on the difference? Break it down into simple premises, where I can really get a grip on when you believe it is okay to tell people dangerous lies and when it is not.

We could discuss hypotheticals or examples all day, but I don't know if I would get what the actual rules are behind those examples - so can you boil it down just to those rules?

[DreamerUSA]

Can you elaborate on the difference? Break it down into simple premises, where I can really get a grip on when you believe it is okay to tell people dangerous lies and when it is not.

We could discuss hypotheticals or examples all day, but I don't know if I would get what the actual rules are behind those examples - so can you boil it down just to those rules?

Its speech versus action.

I can say "I hate white people and think they are a bunch of criminals". Stupid thing to say, but not criminal. But, if I walk into a bar and say "hey, see that white dude over there? He stole something out of your car", if it isn't true, then it is criminal. Its a difference of a stupid thing to say, but within the realms of free speech, and an actual call to action over false accusations.

In your example, and mine, someone sought out a "professionals" advice and services were provided. There was an actual exchange between two parties. Watching some random whack job on YouTube is not the same as me going to a professional, paying for their service, and dying as a result of the information provided. If we make it to where it is, then you open a whole other can of worms. Do we criminalize flat earthers or any other number of conspiracy theorists on YouTube if something bad happens as a result of someone using that information?

Throughout history people seem to think they can wield the power of censorship for good and it rarely, if ever, turns out well.

[Split Decision]

I don't really care and think vaccines are good - BUT, I'm not so sure what else they are slipping in there...

u can say the same thing about literally everything u consume

[Lomasexual]

Its speech versus action.

I can say "I hate white people and think they are a bunch of criminals". Stupid thing to say, but not criminal. But, if I walk into a bar and say "hey, see that white dude over there? He stole something out of your car", if it isn't true, then it is criminal. Its a difference of a stupid thing to say, but within the realms of free speech, and an actual call to action over false accusations.

In your example, and mine, someone sought out a "professionals" advice and services were provided. There was an actual exchange between two parties. Watching some random whack job on YouTube is not the same as me going to a professional, paying for their service, and dying as a result of the information provided. If we make it to where it is, then you open a whole other can of worms. Do we criminalize flat earthers or any other number of conspiracy theorists on YouTube if something bad happens as a result of someone using that information?

Throughout history people seem to think they can wield the power of censorship for good and it rarely, if ever, turns out well.

Which one is speech, and which one is action?

Speech is an action, isn't it?

If you buy something off the whackjob, does it then become criminal that they lie to you - and if so, is that only under some kind of contract law?

I still don't think I am clear on the underlying premises of your argument.

For example, these seem to be the unresolved premises here:

Premise 1: It is okay to lie to someone, to do everything you can to convince them of that lie, where if they believe you, they will die.

Premise 2: It is not okay to lie to someone, to convince them of something which will lead to their death, if you are a doctor.

Neither of them really seem satisfactory, and I don't think they capture what you are trying to say. But I'm not able to attain anything more specific or concrete as of yet either.