Thursday, October 10, 2019
What Limit Should be Place on the Anti-Vax Movement
Anti-vax rhetoric is not harmless. It has caused preventable outbreaks that have harmed and killed many. These people are simply trying to help their children, but are falling prey to fake news and hysteria. ( https://www.healthline.com/health-news/children-anti-vaccination-movement-leads-to-disease-outbreaks-120312#1 ) Because of this, should what they are doing be considered a "clear and present danger"? The problem is that the vast majority of the people who are spreading this truely believe that what they are saying is true. These are also often individuals, not organizations that are spreading the news so there is less accountability. Additionally, this false information is being spread on social media, which the first amendment does not cover, so why is it not being censored? Because of the lack of censorship, it has gone from a fringe movement to a mainstream one. ( https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/health/anti-vaccination-movement-us.html ) Do you think that sites such as facebook need to be doing more to stop the spread of the anti-vax movement? If so to what point? Would absolute censorship only strengthen the movement, as it may seem to them that the government is trying to stop the truth from getting out and cause more outrage?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think this post is really interesting, especially how you pointed out the clear and present danger. This made me think about something else. If parents are refusing to vaccinate their kids, are they creating a clear and present danger for a minor who cannot consent? By preventing their kids from getting vaccinated, it could be argued that not only are they creating a clear and present danger for outbreaks within the community, but also creating a clear and present danger for their own child, someone who the are responsible for protecting. Also, did you hear about the law passed in new york about the anti-vaxx movement? There are some really interesting articles about this!
ReplyDeleteYou bring up some very interesting points in this post. I thought it was especially interesting what you brought up about how the people spreading anti-vax information are usually not properly educated about what vaccines actually do – they believe that it is truly better for them or their child to not be vaccinated. While I agree that something should be done to prevent the potential dangers of this movement, I also think that we should be cautious. I found an article that talks about how the institution of mandatory vaccinations could actually decrease the amounts of vaccinations because people will see it as the government trying to meddle in the personal, medical lives of citizens and will therefore be less open to vaccinations (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/08/30/danger-stricter-vaccine-laws/). I could see the same thing happening with censorship of inaccurate, anti-vax advertisement. I think it might only encourage those who already believe in the anti-vax movement to spread their information in other ways and would bring more urgency to the movement. It might also create skepticism as to the validity of vaccinations in those less educated on the topic because the government is trying to control the information they have access to. Since any legislation to suppress the anti-vax movement might result in the opposite, I think that whatever is done about it should take careful consideration of how it will impact people's views on vaccinations. Is it possible to prevent the dangers of the movement without infringing upon civil rights?
ReplyDeleteYou raised some good questions about this issue. I agree with the fact that social media has complicated the matter by making it difficult to ascertain who is spreading the fake news. However, as Mr. Stewart mentioned in class regarding hate speech in song lyrics, I think that it's not so straightforward to claim that posts about the anti-vax movement can be considered a "clear and present danger" and that they should be censored. Current pop culture music contains violent and misogynistic lyrics, but should the artists be penalized if their listeners follow through with the song's messages? In other words, people choose what they want to read and listen to, but when they take harmful action, then they should endure consequences. Also, I think that there is something to be said about how parents are denying their children's right to safety by not allowing them to get vaccinated. This argument could potentially be used to put out the anti-vax movement.
ReplyDelete