You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
You're missing the forest for the trees. It has nothing to do with vaccines at all, notice the one very particular rider they have used to legally enforce this; propaganda.
It's a mental trick. By normalizing the illegality of propaganda, it will never end. Next it's pro-life propaganda, gun propaganda, free speech propaganda, anti-immigrant propaganda.
Don't allow yourself to be so easily distracted by the buzz-word, pay attention to the important legal term used. This is how the globalhomo's loophole you into accepting your own destruction before you even realize whats happening.
" - said the LARPing faggot. If your message has pure intentions, why do you have to pretend to be somebody else? Does it help to get someone to accept something as truth if they think that it is coming from a person they think to be respectable?
I did notice the use of the word, which is the main concern I have. Those who question the health overlords of this world get disproportionately shit on because we are all just supposed to fall in line and take our medicine. They are so against anyone with even mild questions much less someone 100% against it. The response is over the top and that tells me there is something valuable there they don't want us to know.
[–]Marked24760 points
10 points
10 points
(+10|-0)
ago
Does anti-vaccine propoganda include medical research from the new england journal of medicine? Cause the studies on there are some serious red-pill shit..
It's not propaganda, it's asking legitimate questions. At this point, just questioning what's in the vaccine and who makes it are grounds to be censored
Posting anti-vaccine propaganda on social media could become a criminal offence - even if those promoting it believe the pseudoscience, the UK’s new criminal Law Commissioner has said.
In her first interview since taking up the role, Penney Lewis, revealed she is considering whether laws should be amended to “lower the threshold” of criminality for posting false information online that endangers lives.
It comes as the Health Secretary Matt Hancock said in September he was “looking very seriously” at making vaccinations compulsory for state school pupils after the UK lost its official measles-free country status due to a steady fall in MMR immunisation rates.
Currently, people are protected from prosecution if they sincerely believe the misinformation they publish under laws designed more to tackle bomb hoaxes than internet health conspiracies.
Speaking to the Sunday Telegraph, Prof. Lewis said current legislation also meant people only faced prosecution for publishing information with the purpose of causing “annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety”.
However, she cited anti-vaccination posts and people advocating cancer patients treat themselves with the apricot extract laetrile instead of chemotherapy as areas where lives could be endangered.
The former King’s College professor said: “If their purpose is actually not to [cause annoyance or anxiety], but they think they are doing the right thing by posting false information about a vaccine, for example, it is then should there be a recklessness-based fault element or even a lower (criminal) threshold?
Health Secretary Matt Hancock has said he is looking at bring in mandatory vaccinations to combat Britain's falling immunisation rates
Health Secretary Matt Hancock has said he is looking at bring in mandatory vaccinations to combat Britain's falling immunisation rates CREDIT: AFP
“So where they’ve really not done their homework and they’ve been negligent in the way they have spread this false information or disseminated it.”
“I think we need to look into whether there is a role (for criminal law) in relation to false health information.”
However, Prof Lewis said that criminalisation would be “difficult to justify” in cases where no malicious intent could be proved.
Prof. Lewis became one of the Law Commission’s five commissioners last month, and will lead its work drawing up reforms to modernise swathes of the UK's criminal law over her five-year term, starting a wide-ranging review of how Britain’s communications laws function in the social media age.
To date, over two thirds of the independent statutory body's recommendations for Government to amend or pass new legislation have been implemented wholly or in part.
As part of the review, Prof Lewis said the commission would be considering whether “glorification” of self-harm online should also be made a criminal offence.
The Law Commission is set to release its proposals on modernising communication laws for public consultation later this year. Prof. Lewis will then draw up recommendations, which will be signed off by four other law commissioners, before going to the Government.
The 52-year-old comes to the task with a wealth of experience dealing with contentious legal cases in three different countries, with most of her work to date focusing on historic child sex abuse prosecutions and the medical ethics around assisted dying.
Born and raised in Wembley, north London, Prof. Lewis moved to Canada aged 11 with her family before going on to study maths at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).
It was an optional ‘introduction to the law’ module that ignited her interest in free speech issues and she then went on to study law as a post-grad in Canada. She later qualified as a barrister and clerked for Mr Justice Iacobucci on the Commonwealth country’s Supreme Court, before returning to the UK and taking a position at King's College London in 1995.
Prof. Lewis said her involvement with emotive issues such as euthanasia meant she keeps a low profile on social media herself, partly due to already receiving correspondence in her email inbox that she “doesn’t want to read”. However, she said she is also keenly aware of the way the disproportionate abuse women face online is hounding them off social media and silencing them.
She said: “If victims are effectively forced offline by the behaviour of potential defendants, then their freedom of expression is being limited in a way that we should worry about.”
One model the new law commissioner is looking at for modernising the UK’s laws is New Zealand’s approach of criminalising online messages based on the harm they cause, with harm largely defined as emotional distress.
She highlighted UK law around battery as a comparative model, whereby any unlawful physical contact is classed as assault but then penalties increase with the severity of actual or grievous bodily harm.
Yet she warned such a system for social media abuse would have to be linked to defined criminal actions so that lawful behavior was not inadvertently criminalised by accusations of harm or offence.
“I would slightly worry that [behaviour] that may not be illegal then becomes illegal because the victim was harmed,” said Prof. Lewis.
Not for me. It might be one of those "view more than 3 articles and we lock out the rest" type things. Refresh your IP and clear out your cookies, that might help.
Sort: Top
[–] YamaMaya 0 points 27 points 27 points (+27|-0) ago
The reaction to merely questioning vaccines is so over the top it is enough to make anyone with an ounce of critical thinking suspicious
[–] Mumlbeberry 5 points 3 points 8 points (+8|-5) ago
You're missing the forest for the trees. It has nothing to do with vaccines at all, notice the one very particular rider they have used to legally enforce this; propaganda.
It's a mental trick. By normalizing the illegality of propaganda, it will never end. Next it's pro-life propaganda, gun propaganda, free speech propaganda, anti-immigrant propaganda.
Don't allow yourself to be so easily distracted by the buzz-word, pay attention to the important legal term used. This is how the globalhomo's loophole you into accepting your own destruction before you even realize whats happening.
Don't be a sheep
[–] MOGA 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
" - said the LARPing faggot. If your message has pure intentions, why do you have to pretend to be somebody else? Does it help to get someone to accept something as truth if they think that it is coming from a person they think to be respectable?
[–] YamaMaya ago
I did notice the use of the word, which is the main concern I have. Those who question the health overlords of this world get disproportionately shit on because we are all just supposed to fall in line and take our medicine. They are so against anyone with even mild questions much less someone 100% against it. The response is over the top and that tells me there is something valuable there they don't want us to know.
[–] Marked2476 0 points 10 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago
Does anti-vaccine propoganda include medical research from the new england journal of medicine? Cause the studies on there are some serious red-pill shit..
[–] Vc83 0 points 10 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago
It's not propaganda, it's asking legitimate questions. At this point, just questioning what's in the vaccine and who makes it are grounds to be censored
[–] [deleted] 0 points 8 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago
[–] BalfourYourFace 1 point 2 points 3 points (+3|-1) ago
That's a jew face if I've ever saw one
[–] FreakingFatFupa ago
They are TRANSGENDERS
/v/transvestigation
[–] Ken_bingo2 ago
Because they are backed by plutocrats that are happy to reward the useful idiots.
[–] fellowkikepeople ago
Because they're willing to use techniques we believe to be beneath civilized human beings.
[–] Sosacms 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
If the medical community can't out debate shit posters, that's on them.
[–] RedCoatTurnCoat [S] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
They can't.
That's why they are going to outlaw the slightest whiff of opposition.
[–] XDandLaughing 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Paywalled. I took the bullet for you ingrates:
[–] MOGA ago
Not for me. It might be one of those "view more than 3 articles and we lock out the rest" type things. Refresh your IP and clear out your cookies, that might help.
[–] YouAreASlave 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Every. Fucking. Time.
[–] blumen4alles 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Tells you all you need to know about vaccines, doesn't it?