Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Shouting Fire!

Entry 1856, on 2017-05-25 at 23:24:46 (Rating 4, News)

First, I want to make a quick comment about the big news from yesterday: the terrorist attack in Manchester. As soon as it was reported I commented "Islam again?" and I was right, it was Islam again, and it almost always is. I will write a bit more about this in a future post but I just needed to say something now because so many people are defending Islam and I think that defence is often taken too far.

But the main subject of this post is freedom of speech, and what limitations should be put on it. This subject arose after a prominent New Zealand doctor disrupted a screening of the anti-vaccination film "Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe". He told the audience the arguments behind the film were "based on lies and fraudulent information that harms children".

He's right, of course, but did he have the right to do that? I should note that, as far as I can tell, the people were not prevented from watching the film, they were just warned about it first. But they were warned in a rather extreme way, including (for some bizarre reason) a haka (a traditional Maori war-dance or challenge).

So first, is there any good evidence that vaccination either doesn't work or is dangerous? Well, like all medical interventions, there are some risks and it might not be effective in a small number of cases, but generally it is both safe and effective. Well respected organisations like the World Health Organisation, UNESCO, and the Center for Disease Control have estimated that millions of people have been saved from death and disease by vaccinations.

Against this are a small number of poorly designed studies, some of them discredited and retracted, and contrary beliefs largely based on emotional arguments, personal opinions, anecdotes, and broad claims backed up with little specific evidence.

It's possible that some vaccines have unknown hazards and it's even possible that some might not be as effective as currently believed, but the only rational conclusion possible at this time is that vaccination is a valuable disease prevention technique.

So it is reasonable to say that vaccination works and is safe to the extent that any small risks are easily compensated for by the potential benefits.

But the second question is less straightforward. Is it OK to try to stop people from exercising their right to freedom of opinion? Should the "authorities" prevent films like this one from being shown? And should opponents of the film's message be allowed to present their opinions to an audience who really don't want to hear it?

I believe in personal freedom of expression but I think everyone would recognise there must be limits to this. This is the old classic question: is it OK to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire? If you have freedom of expression then why not? Does that freedom trump the risk of people being injured when trying to exit the theatre?

I suspect that most people, including those at the screening of "Vaxxed", would say that falsely shouting fire is a bad thing and that's probably what they thought the doctor was metaphorically doing. But, as I indicated above, he was really doing the equivalent of shouting "fire" when there really was a fire. Because, if the movie persuades parents not to vaccinate their kids in large numbers it could result in new epidemics of disease which would cause far more deaths than those likely to occur in a theatre fire.

Another case could be made to say that the doctor was not inhibiting freedom of expression because in offering his own opinion he was actually enhancing that expression. If presenting one side of the "controversy" (note that there is no real controversy) is seen as giving freedom of expression then surely presenting the other side as well just improves that. Anti-vaccination protestors seem to think it is their right to turn up at pro-vaccination events so what's wrong with the opposite scenario?

Finally, do people have the right to be ignorant? I would say no, but even if they do, do they have the right to inflict their ignorant views, and the negative consequences of those views, onto others? Many of those people who go to "Vaxxed" will be parents and some of those will fail to vaccinate their kids as a consequence. That's causing potential suffering to another person because they're too naive to see through anti-vaccination propaganda themselves.

It seems to me the doctor was a hero in many ways. Maybe he got a little bit too confrontational in the way he did what he did, but was he right to do it? I think so.

Comment 1 (4695) by Derek Ramsey on 2017-05-26 at 09:23:08:

If you look at the history of “showing ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” you’ll realize that this statement was never law, it was used to justify acts of censorship, and the case ‘U.S. v Schenck’ where it was used was overturned 40 years later.

You should add this statement to your list of words (or phrases) that people should stop using. Whenever someone mentions it, they are usually trying to censor or justify censoring speech.
It doesn’t even make sense anyway. If you yelled ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, you might be correct (if there was a fire), incorrect (if you thought there was but were wrong), or joking (if you were a stand-up comedian). It wouldn’t be acceptable to censor any of these. Now let’s say your goal was to create a panic, would it be acceptable to curtail your free speech? Nope. But you would be guilty of a number of public safety and criminal laws having nothing to do with infringing your right to free speech.

Comment 2 (4696) by OJB on 2017-05-26 at 09:23:25:

Yes, I was aware of the history of the idea and knew about the case you mentioned above. I was more interested in this as a moral or logical concept rather than a legal one. After all, I have made it very clear that I think "the law is an ass!" (another phrase to avoid?)

I am very conflicted about this because I really do want to maximise free speech. Unfortunately I also want to minimise the spread of lies and misinformation. Your idea of not outlawing the speech itself but penalising the outcome is interesting. I'll have a think about that.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.