Anonymous #2 1w

So u think it’s ok to spread misinformation that can lead to the death of ppl?

7

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 1w

Yes

-3

Anonymous #2 1w

With limitations

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

Vile.

8

Anonymous OP 1w

I respect the constitution of the United States. Not a moral argument I’m making here, purely a legal one

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

Ur a disgusting human being being

6

Anonymous #2 1w

My favorite piece of rolling paper 💨

3

Anonymous OP 1w

You’re both idiots.

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

🥱 at least I’m not in favor of spreading measles

4

Anonymous #2 1w

U think it’s ok to spread information that can lead to ppl dying…oh but with limitations so it somehow makes it better?

1

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 1w

The question proposed is not whether it’s okay, it’s whether it should be illegal. This speech would be protected under the First Amendment as long as they don’t represent themselves as medical professionals. Speech can only be restricted if it is going to incite imminent harm.

0

Anonymous #2 1w

That’s cool, I asked you directly if you think that’s ok. Not if it should be legal. And you said yes…

9

“Wah wah strawman” god you debate bros are so stupid. If you are not in favor of making it illegal, you are pro-anti-vaxxer.

1

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 1w

Oh sorry I missed that no I think it’s ethically wrong. Legally it should be protected

-1

Anonymous OP 1w

I am pro first amendment. Take a civil liberties class

-1

Anonymous #2 1w

I have. I think you don’t understand that I don’t care and think stopping this shit is more important.

3

Anonymous #2 1w

I feel like if it can lead to the death of a person said misinformation should be illegal.

7

Anonymous OP 1w

You can’t just stop one thing without throwing out decades of SCOTUS precedent in regards to every other aspect of speech. Regardless, I agree it’s ethically wrong but you should still have the freedom to do it. If someone listens to your advice, that’s on you, not them.

0

Anonymous #2 1w

That’s on them, not you*

0

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 1w

Your feelings don’t change how the court interprets harm in the context of speech

0

Anonymous #2 1w

Ok that’s cool whatever. This whole discussion is about how we feel tho?

5

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 1w

People say many things that could lead to the death of others. If you follow their instructions, that is on you man

0

Anonymous #2 1w

Children are easily influenced and don’t rlly know when something is dumb. During the golden age of dumb challenges, children were eating tide pods, having ppl choke them until they passed out, and I’m pretty sure drank pepto bismol. In the case of adults you could argue “well ur an adult.” But when it comes to influential ppl(even if they don’t have a degree or experience in what they’re talking about)ppl are gonna listen because they have a large following

5

Anonymous thereal._.ruckus 1w

If a public figure with no intellectual background tell you to do something and you do it thinking they’re a reputable source it’s your fault

0

Anonymous #2 1w

Dawg, the average American is functionally illiterate. The average person is gonna listen to a person with 200k followers and tons of influence. Ppl respect authority. And you kinda skipped over the children aspect of what I said

2

Anonymous OP 1w

Supporting our constitutional right to free speech doesn’t make you an anti-vaxxer.

1