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

[A-Wolf]

[PACnPBFsuck]

ADpocalypse 2.0 is on the way

[DreamerUSA]

This is where I think the 'freedom of speech' absolutists are just plain wrong.

If you lie to someone and that person then endangers their children and other people because of your lies, then that needs to be considered illegal.

I'd be happy with seeing it made a crime to lie to people about medical issues. People have a right to correct information about their health - nothing is more important than health - and this simply steamrolls any absolutist ideals about rights to freedom of speech.

Rights sometimes clash. When they do, one or the other has to give way.

People's right to health must take priority over someone else's right to lie to them. I know it seems crazy that something so obvious needs to be stated, but here we are.

You have no right to anything from some random ****wit on YouTube. Your argument might hold some weight if you did, but you don't. There are no rights clashing.

[New England]

you guys would have to google the diseases that used to kill and maim children. i know i did. how many people do you know with polio? TB? that's because vaccines work.

[BrometheusBob.]

This is tough. On the one hand I don't want them policing views in general, but on the other anti-vaxxers are just plain dangerously dumb.

[SouthPawHitman]

Just give them a beer and they’ll be alright

[Lomasexual]

You have no right to anything from some random ****wit on YouTube. Your argument might hold some weight if you did, but you don't. There are no rights clashing.

I suppose I have no rights when in a crowded theatre, and someone yells out 'Fire!' for a laugh, right?

[DreamerUSA]

I suppose I have no rights when in a crowded theatre, and someone yells out 'Fire!' for a laugh, right?

Apples and oranges. You are actually in the theatre in your example. Dude on YouTube isn't in your house inciting panic. Dude on YouTube isn't forcing you to watch him. After watching the dude on YouTube you have the option to do more research. Honestly I don't even see why you would make the comparison.

[Lomasexual]

Apples and oranges. You are actually in the theatre in your example. Dude on YouTube isn't in your house inciting panic. Dude on YouTube isn't forcing you to watch him. After watching the dude on YouTube you have the option to do more research. Honestly I don't even see why you would make the comparison.

Ok, so let's say I live in a rural area. I seek out a medical professional who can do video consulting.

He isn't in my house. He isn't forcing me to consult him.

He prescribes me poison, telling me it will cure me, and I die.

I suppose that doesn't violate any kind of natural rights either?

[DreamerUSA]

Ok, so let's say I live in a rural area. I seek out a medical professional who can do video consulting.

He isn't in my house. He isn't forcing me to consult him.

He prescribes me poison, telling me it will cure me, and I die.

I suppose that doesn't violate any kind of natural rights either?

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.