That we should ban public speeches and appearances made by anti-vaccination advocates.

Asked by: clarker18
  • I thought this was clear.

    Vaccines do not cause autism. And even if they did, would you want you child to become disabled, or have a risk of death? It doesn't go against the first amendment, because these speakers are causing a dangerous situation. Your not allowed to shout 'fire' in a movie theatre, and it follows the same rules. If there was substantial evidence that vaccine are dangerous, that would be a different story.

    Posted by: Rami
  • That is intolerant

    And judgmental. To ban someone for disagreeing with you? And there us evidence that some vaccines can be harmful. If someone wants to prevent autism should they be banned? Really? What if their speach isn't related to vaccines. No no no don't ban someone for trying to help people. It's intolerant.

  • No, that'd go against free speech.. Unfortunately.

    Even though what they have to say isn't scientifically inaccurate, we still have to respect their right to say it. We can't just tell someone to sit down and shut up because we don't agree with their views, although it does seem like nowadays you can be demonized for holding a view other than what Obama and the liberal media wants you to have.. Let them speak!

  • Freedom of Expression

    Freedom of Expression is a key aspect to our wonderful way of life and if the is lost who is to say that greater consequences will not follow. If we stop one group from publicising speaking many more could be banned due to this newly approved method of dictatorship. This can lead to a dictatorship of epic proportions where everything must be approved by the government.

  • Banning one form of speech is abolishing free speech

    Wrong or right, scientific or not, speech is speech, in a free society, speech cannot be regulated, regardless of content. When the government has the power to regulate speech, the temptation to abuse such a power is overwhelming. For example, if a law were to be adopted that all ''unscientific'' speech became illegal, first it could be creationism and anti-vaccination speech that is banned, the next day, criticisms of the government could be ruled ''unscientific'' and therefore, criticism of the government is banned. The argument against vaccinations is unscientific, there is no link to autism, but that isn't an excuse to ban public speech from people who believe in this.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.