It's useful to read the entire thing.
https://www.scribd.com/doc/25983372/FACTS-WWSM-280110-Final-...
But imagine a doctor that merely says "Don't get vaccines, they cause autism" but doesn't falsify any data. That doctor is probably going to be erased from the English register.
No, but they would likely be censured.
A doctor has to spectacularly screw up to get struck off. It's not done lightly. One obstetrician accidentally decapitated a baby during birth and kept her licence.
Wakefield faked data, concealed two financial conflicts of interest, and ordered painful, invasive procedures (spinal taps and colonoscopies) on severely autistic children that were not clinically indicated and that he did not have the training to interpret. He even paid children at his son's birthday party for blood samples, then laughed about them crying during a later talk.
That is not the sort of man I want practicing medicine.
> A doctor has to spectacularly screw up to get struck off. It's not done lightly. One obstetrician accidentally decapitated a baby during birth and kept her licence.
You're talking about medical error, and I agree you're right there.
I'm talking about dishonesty, and doctors (in England) get struck off for dishonesty relatively easily.
Mistakes happen, and can be remediated. Dishonesty is seen as harder to remediate.
No patient harm, but over charging the patient: https://www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod-files/miss-susan-li...
False expenses claims, no patient harm: https://www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod-files/dr-kirsten-te...
Failure to report to duty; not paying back a debt to the employer (no patient harm): https://www.mpts-uk.org/-/media/mpts-rod-files/dr-chokkaling...
Because that doctor is also falsifying data, namely, the data that they're presenting to their patient so they can make an informed decision.
It's always fascinating how quick people are to jump on the free market bandwagon when it suits their ends. Free speech protections also sometimes apply to privately managed public spaces, like malls.
> These individuals are free to shout their ideas in the public square.
Facebook is arguably the new public square, which is precisely my point.
Your suggestion that privately held malls are subject to free speech protections is misleading. See Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner. There are counter examples of course, be these apply only in niche situations.
Regardless, Facebook is not a public space. It's very much a private space. Suggesting that Facebook be treated as a public space is a pretty radical idea.
Not misleading at all, I said it sometimes applies, which is true because some states recognize it as a right and some don't.
> Regardless, Facebook is not a public space. It's very much a private space.
A private space that anyone and everyone can freely access, and are, in fact, encouraged to frequent as much as humanly possible, and arguably has become intrinsic to the daily life of many, perhaps most, Americans. In fact, it's probably one of their primary means of socializing with friends and family, and definitely a medium for political discourse. Arguing it's a private space seems increasingly flimsy, frankly.
Further precedent I recently came across suggests it's not so radical after all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packingham_v._North_Carolina
Unanimous decision by the Supreme Court actually called social media the public square.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/06/attack-net-neutrality-...
Hey, I think Clay Shirky wants his point from 2008 back. Since we actually have more than 10 years to have reflected on this idea, we can now see it's patently nonsense, given that the idea of the "public square" doesn't encompass harvesting the conversations which happen therein, aggressive tailored marketing, and leaking of personal information from everyone who crosses through. Facebook capitalises on the notion of a public square. That does not make it one.
Oh, so marketers aren't allowed to poll, film or listen in on conversations that happen out in public? In fact that's perfectly legal.
> Facebook capitalises on the notion of a public square. That does not make it one.
And free speech protections also need not be limited to overly strict definitions of public square. The question these types of controversies should be raising is whether free speech protections should extend to services like Facebook.
Facebook is a private space that anyone and everyone can freely access, and are, in fact, encouraged to frequent as much as humanly possible, and arguably has become intrinsic to the daily life of many, perhaps most, Americans. In fact, it's probably one of their primary means of socializing with friends and family, and definitely a medium for political discourse. Arguing it's a purely private space seems increasingly flimsy, frankly.
Is HN not a public forum as well? Are my constitutional rights being violated when a moderator deletes something a post here on HN?
What about all those shadow banned users, are they entitled to their free speech on any website that allows comments?
Secondly, any legal distinction is established via a multi-part test. As a first pass, I would ask:
1. Is the site open and particularly, targeted to the general public?
2. Does the site enjoy widespread use by the general public?
3. Is the site intended to foster open discussion on any topic? For instance, the public itself drives most conversation on the platform.
This isn't necessarily exhaustive, just a first pass. HN is targeted at a technical audience (although its open to anyone), it's typically used only by this subset of the general public, and its content is narrowly focused on technical subject matter, so it would fail two parts of this test.
Facebook definitely passes all three qualifications, Twitter doesn't have as widespread use by the general public but it continues to grow.
> What about all those shadow banned users, are they entitled to their free speech on any website that allows comments?
Shadow banning seems like a poor idea. Terms of service that encourage civil discussion are perfectly fine, and violators should get an explicit and public timeout, never a ban. I've toyed with the idea that repeat offences trigger exponentially increasing timeouts.
Judging violations of ToS should be a transparent process. Something like jury duty as a term of using a service also seems like it might be a workable idea. Corporations have their own motives for censorship, primarily profit motives to draw in advertisers, and so they have incentives to bury anything even remotely controversial and are not incentivized to evaluate anything "fairly".
You're right, you can't because the anti-vaxx movement is as old as vaccines themselves. Wakefield's license was revoked for actually legitimate reasons. For his actions in falsifying data, not for expressing the idea that vaccines cause autism.
> I also think the ideas that Jones and Yiannopolous promote are easily seen to be harmful. Yiannopolous has promoted violence against journalists and associated himself with white supremacist movements.
Incitement to violence is a crime. We have processes for reporting crimes and seeing justice is done.
> I suppose it's up to you if you feel those ideas could cause harm - I feel they (and other ideas both have promoted) do.
"Ideas causing harm" is exactly the wrong way to look at it. Actions cause harm.
Sometimes ideas lead to action, but we should always police the action, not the thoughts. We start down a dangerous path to thoughtcrime as soon as someone is no longer permitted to think or express an idea.