[s1k3b8]

> We shouldn't regulate speech, but you should own the consequences of your actions -- speech included.

This is simply terrifying. Actions should be penalized, not speech.

> If you're spreading anti-vax propaganda, you're complicit in killing kids.

People like you are what I fear the most. Using children to justify tyranny and oppression. Maybe you have good intentions but that's what the road to hell is paved with.

You do realize that your way of thinking opens up gay rights activists to prosecution for spreading HIV? What about vegan activists? Babies and even pets have been starved to death because some people followed vegan advice. Should all vegan activists be punished?

What about PR firms who create soda ads? Should we round up all of them and punish them? What about journalists? If a journalist writes a story that leads to war ( legal or illegal ) that results in the death of children, should they be prosecuted?

Should librarians be prosecuted because libraries carry offensive material that people might read to cause harm?

Also, you do realize that your system depends entirely on who is in charge rather than principles? What if anti-vaxxers are in charge. Your system allows them to mark all pro-vaxxers as criminals spreading propaganda. Do you really want to live in that kind of world?

[anoncake]

> Actions should be penalized, not speech.

Speaking is an action.

> You do realize that your way of thinking opens up gay rights activists to prosecution for spreading HIV?

Are gay rights activists stating incorrect facts that risk the public health, including of heterosexual people?

> What about vegan activists? Babies and even pets have been starved to death because some people followed vegan advice. Should all vegan activists be punished?

No, of course not. Unless they claim that a given diet is harmless or beneficial to babies/pets even though it's known to be harmful.

> What about PR firms who create soda ads? Should we round up all of them and punish them?

Not necessarily, unless their ads contain lies or are intentionally misleading.

> If a journalist writes a story that leads to war ( legal or illegal ) that results in the death of children, should they be prosecuted?

Did they lie?

> Should librarians be prosecuted because libraries carry offensive material that people might read to cause harm?

That obviously depends on the material in question.

> Also, you do realize that your system depends entirely on who is in charge rather than principles?

No, it depends on things like a working democracy, rule of law, and freedom of science.

[krzepah]

I think you are jumping on his words and not taking his statement to their true meaning. Are you telling on the opposite side that someone publicly announcing false information that could harm someone should not be responsible for it?

You are the one who's making me afraid.

[username90]

Intent matters here, and anti-vaxxers spread this information because they believe they will help the kids. Scientists are often wrong. Probably less often than other people, and probably not in the case of vaccines, but it is dumb to make it illegal in general to say things scientists disagree with.

And yes, scientists say that kids die without vaccines, some people disagree, so you would actually punish them for disagreeing with scientists since otherwise you wouldn't be sure these people killed kids.