Substantially overstating risks, and often making them up is what Dr. Robert Malone does for money. He is not a scholar, he is a grifter.
Freedom of expression should never be freedom of harmful expression or freedom of consequences.
Freedom of expression should never be freedom of harmful expression or freedom of consequences.
Everything you do has consequences, it's meaningless to wish for them unless you mean unpleasant ones, which then means that you're looking for those you disagree with to experience bad things. Hardly an original thought, and not a good one either. As Chomsky once put it, "even Stalin was in favour of speech he liked".
> freedom of harmful expression
This though, could be interesting. How would it be decided? Who would decide it?
In a democracy what is harmful and what is not is decided by the public, and ideally that public should be well-informed and educated, if not, you have a different problem you must fix. For example the United States is far from an ideal democracy, it is a flawed democracy. When a few people are allowed to manipulate a lot of people to get rich or powerful you have a flawed system. That's what Substack allows as well. And it's not right. Never will be.
If you mean that the public decide by making their own decisions on whether to read something or not then that sounds like a good system to me, as I’m happy to make my own decisions. I’m also an adult who respects the right for other adults to make their own decisions, especially about what they read.
I have no issue with substack as a platform. My issue is with substack the Delaware C Corp.
Freedom to speak and freedom to profit from coordinating a platform for speech are different things. If you think "my ability to make money on social media platform capitalism" and "the original intent of the first amendment" are the same thing, then we have no common ground about what America is or means.
I don't. Thanks for letting me clear that up.
> Freedom to speak and freedom to profit from coordinating a platform for speech are different things.
Let's accept it because you've written it. What is it that you object to in either the freedom to speak or the freedom - via any means (freedom, right?) - to profit from it?
In this case, it is up to Substack to decide. The reason for bringing pressure against Substack is exactly so that they remove the disinformation that is harmful to the public.
So who decides what is disinformation? And why didn’t the Guardian provide any disinformation? (in the example about Malone they used, Malone’s claim was correct)
I also have to wonder how "tight and regulated" they are that these payouts in the hundreds of millions or even billions end up in court, repeatedly, for actions that look remarkably similar.
I simply don't know what your objection to Malone's words could be if your going to take the position you have on Pfizer.