Posted on 05/29/2020 6:46:57 AM PDT by Kaslin
Most Americans consider their freedom of speech to be sacrosanct because it has been codified into law in the Bill of Rights, in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The famous exception everyone knows it that you can’t yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre -- in other words, you aren’t free to inspire panic within the general public. But what if the general public has already panicked, and the speech being suppressed is actually trying to calm people?
Recently a disturbing video of Dr. Ivette Lozano at an Open Texas! rally appeared, claiming that pharmacists have refused to fill prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine unless the physician violates the patient’s right to privacy and reveals the specific purpose of the medication. The demand is not only illegal, it is immoral -- these alleged medical professionals are refusing to dispense medicines for purely political reasons, if her claims are true.
A brief Internet search confirms that Dr. Lozano is a practicing physician in Dallas, Texas. According to WebMD, she has experience treating bronchitis, asthma, and other respiratory disorders, therefore the odds are that she knows what she’s talking about and is telling the truth about pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions of hydroxychloroquine, presumably just because President Trump talked about it and revealed that he has been taking the medicine as prophylaxis against the Wuhan coronavirus. The best argument against prescribing the drug should be that it is unproven as a treatment for this specific illness, but frankly, that’s not a very good argument because the anecdotal evidence and early studies suggested otherwise. The argument that the drug is potentially dangerous is rather ludicrous, considering that it has been safely and successfully used to treat malaria for longer than I’ve been alive, and that covers sixty years.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I’ve been a member of quite a few forums since the turn of the century. I’m very careful not to break site rules and have always had an amicable relationship with mods.
I’ve been banned from at least four sites - so far - since the lockdown started. No, I didn’t violate the rules, but I’ve made the Karens go nuts, violating the rules all over the place. At the end of the day, it’s just easier to get rid of one guy than ban most of the site, so that’s what they do.
We are living in interesting times.
Most of the "argument" against prescribing the drug can be summarized into: "Let's hate Trump".
Me too! I said nothing hateful or hurtful. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of leftist modes of operation. 1984 is today
In all seriousness, most of them accuse me of posting “dangerous” material because it may cause people to not wear a mask. Dead serious.
You heathen ... you apostate ... you ... uh ... murderer!
Well done. Carry on with your mission, CL. Cheers! from this corner of the sandbox.
Yep...delusional. I am off Twitter forever because I said, “the great thing about voting Democrat is that you can vote early, often, in multiple places at once, and POSTHUMOUSLY!”
Twitter reads every tweet Trump writes and discusses it internally to determine how they are going to respond to it. When Biden or some other Democrat tweets they have no review process at all.
All of them are currently governed under section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. Which allows the private entity to censor the content however they wish...including politically. In addition it protects the private entity for being liable for the content of comments and posts of users with the exception of some responsibility to prevent copyright violations and criminal activity.
In my opinion, this needs to change for the platforms which are de facto pulic squares. Political comments should not be allowed to be censored on such platforms. Although the company running the platform is private, they essentially occupy public land. For example, if FaceBook dissapeared per some magic wand, some other company would become the next FaceBook in short order. Same for Twitter. But there is not enough room for two FaceBooks and two Twitters etc. They are occupying a kind of space/niche/position that only one company can occupy. Kudos to them for getting there first. And I am all for them taking advantage of it as businesses. But I draw the line at them occupying such a public space and using it to undermine political dialog. Its as if in the time of the founders one company was able to control all the printing presses and make sure only opinions they agreed with could be in print. This was not possible then, but is now. Thus Freedom of the Press needs to be extended to cover our right to make posts and comments that the owners of de facto public square platforms don't like.
The key here is "monopoly". In the prior century, there were curbs on ownership of TV and newspapers, with the goal of maintaining multiple outlets with multiple points of view.
I would like to see Twitter and FaceBook broken up like AT&T was back in the '80s. Specifically I would like to see the two sites fragmented into personal, teen, and political. Do the same with YouTube while you are at it.
You should post the World Health Organization's guidance on mask wearing, which is don't wear one if you're healthy, unless you are caring for someone with COVID-19. And then ask them who they believe...the UN or Trump's CDC. Then eat some popcorn while their heads explode.
Wiki says otherwise but Wiki is Wiki. If its political the article is suspect.
Actually you can yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, so long as there is a fire.
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.