Posted on 01/26/2023 9:45:13 AM PST by truthkeeper
With the recent passage of AB 2098, California took a highly controversial step in barring doctors from offering “false information” on Covid-19 and related subjects. The law is an extension of Democratic efforts to block or censor “misinformation” and “disinformation” in society from social media to medicine. However, this effort involves direct government action. As will come as little surprise to many on this blog, I opposed the measure as unconstitutionally vague and a threat to free speech. Nevertheless, Judge Fred Slaughter (C.D. Cal.) in McDonald v. Lawson held that this statute was likely constitutional and rejected a motion for a preliminary injunction. Now, however Judge William Shubb (E.D. Cal.) has reached the opposite conclusion in Hoeg v. Newsom, granting an injunction.
The law was enacted despite the fact that many doctors who questioned aspects of Covid treatment (and were attacked for their views) have been largely vindicated. Among the suspended from social media were the doctors who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which advocated for a more focused Covid response that targeted the most vulnerable population rather than widespread lockdowns and mandates. Many are now questioning the efficacy and cost of the massive lockdowns as well as the real value of masks or the rejection of natural immunities as an alternative to vaccination. Yet, these experts and others were attacked for such views just a year ago. Some found themselves censored on social media for challenging claims of Dr. Fauci and others...
(Excerpt) Read more at jonathanturley.org ...
The judge needs to be impeached and/or recalled.
If you read the bill text, California didn’t specify who gets to determine exactly what is “misinformation” and “disinformation” except for a vague appeal to “contemporary scientific consensus”.
So it seems to me that this opens the opportunity to report everyone who says things like “masks work”, “the vaccine will stop the spread of COVID” or “vaccines are safe and effective”, etc, as spreading disinformation and misinformation. Flood them with those kind of reports.
As a bonus, if they ignore those reports, it sets up a defense of selective prosecution for anyone they do try to charge under this statute.
“contemporary scientific consensus”
This is not science. Science is not a democracy. One scientist can be right and millions of others can be wrong.
The political similarities between this censorious law and the Soviet laws concerning Lysenkoism are eerily familiar and they’re also quite revealing of the Marxist and authoritarian mindset of Democrats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
You can extend this to the climate BS too. In fact, it is even more aggressive in that context.
It occurs to me that the term “contemporary scientific consensus” is synonymous with the word ORTHODOXY.
Because if no variance from the consensus is permitted then a defacto orthodoxy has been imposed which will never be allowed to change.
Jonathan Turley has been a pleasant surprise to be sure.
If they can now give false information, they can safely say that the vaccine is safe.
“safe and effective”...
Yes, there is science, and there is the pseudo-religion of scientism. The left is a big fan of scientism, but not so much real science.
How about charging the CDC with the same thing?
Why? This judge ruled in favor of free speech. Did you read this backwards?
Yes. Misunderstood. Thank you.
No problem!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.