ALERT: Demand That CBS Not Air Outdoor Anti-Vaccine Ad!

[Skeptic Ginger]

@ my friend Beth whom I enjoy debating:

Is there a line such free speech could cross that would be too far? Would a sign advertising the KKK showing the lynching of a black man, for example, cross that line?

I'm not saying this ad is that bad, I'm only trying to establish the principle that there is a line and free speech is not limitless.

What do you think of Cesar Chavez's use of boycotts to get worker's rights?

How about the campaign to put pressure on commercial interests that advertised on Glenn Beck's TV program which was one of the reason's his 'free speech' show is being cancelled?

When does free speech trump a boycott and when is a boycott also free speech?

And what about if the FDA came down on Mercola's snake oil sales? Is it anyone's right to cheat people for example, by selling useless cancer cures?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Did you feel the same way about the groups that protested atheist ads on buses and billboards? ....

Is there demonstrable physical harm to children from the atheism ads? Are the ads selling useless alternatives to effective scientific evidence based medicine to unsuspecting parents?

This goes to my question of where one draws the line on acceptable and unacceptable free speech. I define the line as ending where children are harmed or people are taken advantage of for profit.

Where do you draw the line?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, it's not. I just watched the ad. You can see it at respectful insolence.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/stop_cbs_from_airing_anti-vaccine_ads_on.php#more

There are no lies in that ad. However, if by 'advertising lies' you mean that they are advertising a site that will tell them lies, well, yes. I assume that is true for many, if not most websites advertised.

What? most advertised web sites are filled with lies?

The issue here is not about a claim your whites will be whiter with xyz laundry detergent. The web site, National Vaccine Information Center, is not simply advertising a competitor product is better, they are claiming vaccines are harmful and children do not need vaccines. This is not a benign lie.

I doubt BP was telling the whole truth about the oil spill last year either when their ads direct me to their website.
If you can catch them lying in an advertisement, notify the district attorney.
Thanks. I felt similarly about those ads.

Were children directly endangered by BP's false advertising? I think BP needs to be stopped from putting another worker in danger by unsafe work practices. I don't see addressing their ads as the most effective way to force them to improve worker safety. I do think there is much about BP for which addressing it is a worthy cause.

Parents are responsible for their children. Certainly, those organizations influence a great many parents into making decisions you don't like, but ultimately those parents have the responsibility for whatever choices they have made.

Would you report your neighbors leaving toddlers home alone while they went out drinking or would you see that as their parental right?

Again, have you thought about where you define the line on acceptable parental choice vs child endangerment?

I gotta disagree with you there. I've heard that line from too many Fundamentalist Christians. If what they are advocating is wrong, you battle it by explaining why it's wrong, not by attempting to silence the advocates. I do not think this tactic is helpful in swaying public opinion the direction you would like it to move.

Have you defined where you draw the line? I draw it at child endangerment and selling snake oil to an unsuspecting lay public. I don't believe either should be legal. Cheating people and child endangerment are not free speech issues. Religious propaganda in many cases (but not all cases) is a free speech issue.

Consider this, respectful insolence did a blog post on it and included a link to the ad. That means that even more people are going to see the ad through his blog. Further, the ad itself is pretty innocuous. All in all, I think his blog and the petition just provide further publicity for those organizations. They get more traffic to their website as a result.

It's a different audience. The analogy is not relevant.

 

[Beth]

@ my friend Beth whom I enjoy debating:

Is there a line such free speech could cross that would be too far? Would a sign advertising the KKK showing the lynching of a black man, for example, cross that line?

I'm not saying this ad is that bad, I'm only trying to establish the principle that there is a line and free speech is not limitless.

Yes.

 

[Beth]

What? most advertised web sites are filled with lies?

I don't know the actual percentage, but that's what I generally assume. I've been advised not to believe everything I read on the internet.

The issue here is not about a claim your whites will be whiter with xyz laundry detergent. The web site, National Vaccine Information Center, is not simply advertising a competitor product is better, they are claiming vaccines are harmful and children do not need vaccines. This is not a benign lie.

They aren't making that claim in the ad. They may on their website, but that isn't the same issue.

Were children directly endangered by BP's false advertising?

Are children directly endangered by the ad on the Jumbotron?

I didn't say that BP was false advertising. I wouldn't believe what was on their website, but that doesn't make the ad for their website false advertising.

Would you report your neighbors leaving toddlers home alone while they went out drinking or would you see that as their parental right?

If I knew them well enough to know that about them, I would offer to babysit for them.

Again, have you thought about where you define the line on acceptable parental choice vs child endangerment?

Yes. I have given that matter a great deal of thought.

Have you defined where you draw the line? I draw it at child endangerment and selling snake oil to an unsuspecting lay public. I don't believe either should be legal. Cheating people and child endangerment are not free speech issues.

I agree with where you draw the line. I don't agree that the ad in question is selling snake oil. It is not making any false claims. It is not attempting to sell people anything. The ad, if you watch it, is advocating that people research vaccines and decide for themselves. Do you really want to be against that?

What sort of an impression do you think the attempt to suppress such an ad gives?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Are you familiar with Mercola and with the National Vaccine Information Center?

So an ad that says go here to see the lies is OK as long as the lies are not directly stated?

I find that distinction rather trivial.


As for the toddlers home alone, would you intervene if the parents were out and you knew the toddlers were alone? You sidestepped the point but that doesn't make the point moot.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
What sort of an impression do you think the attempt to suppress such an ad gives?

While CTers promote themselves by claiming persecution adds to their credibility, that is pretty much among the already converted. And ad in a public space such as the NYC reader board is aimed at new converts. I find this particular ad to be akin to a spider luring victims into a trap. It sounds like the website has children's true interests at heart. But they are selling poison.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

It is not attempting to sell people anything. The ad, if you watch it, is advocating that people research vaccines and decide for themselves. Do you really want to be against that?

Yes. People suck at doing that. Then other people die.

 

[Estellea]

Beth, I have to agree with Skeptic Ginger. If NVIC and Mercola were actually interested in providing proper information to the public, they wouldn't provide the urls to their own blatantly anti-vaccine sites. Furthermore, their speech isn't protected insofar as CBS is concerned. I do not like censorship any more than you do but this is an attempt to prevent dangerous propaganda, not protection from government oppression.

Este

 

[Beth]

Are you familiar with Mercola and with the National Vaccine Information Center?

All I know about them is what I hear about them here.

So an ad that says go here to see the lies is OK as long as the lies are not directly stated?

I would say it is better than the alternatives. I like the truth in advertising laws. I also like the freedom that allows people to say whatever they want on the internet. It does place a burden on people doing research to vet their sources, but I think that's a reasonable burden and was true even before the internet was around.

I find that distinction rather trivial.

Why? I find it a very important distinction. People will only see the lies on their website if they make the effort to go there and check it out. To me, that's a very different thing that posting lies on a billboard that thousands cannot avoid seeing. There is nothing in the ad itself that is objectionable.

As for the toddlers home alone, would you intervene if the parents were out and you knew the toddlers were alone? You sidestepped the point but that doesn't make the point moot.

I already answered that. If I was close enough to know what was happening, I would intervene. I would probably not report them to the authorities because I don't consider that a helpful action in most cases.

What sort of an impression do you think the attempt to suppress such an ad gives?

While CTers promote themselves by claiming persecution adds to their credibility, that is pretty much among the already converted. And ad in a public space such as the NYC reader board is aimed at new converts. I find this particular ad to be akin to a spider luring victims into a trap. It sounds like the website has children's true interests at heart. But they are selling poison.

They aren't selling anything in the ad. I've not visited their site, so they could be peddling products there. It seems to me that they are only promoting/advocating courses of action that you don't approve of based on false information. I would likely agree with you if I looked at their website, but even if true I don't think that is sufficient justification for suppression of their ad.

I'll ask again. The ad, if you watch it, is advocating that people research vaccines and decide for themselves. Do you really want to be against that? What sort of an impression do you think the attempt to suppress such an ad gives?

 

[Beth]

Beth, I have to agree with Skeptic Ginger. If NVIC and Mercola were actually interested in providing proper information to the public, they wouldn't provide the urls to their own blatantly anti-vaccine sites. Furthermore, their speech isn't protected insofar as CBS is concerned.

I do not dispute that CBS has the right to not agree to air their ads if they so choose. I simply do not agree with the tactic of attempting to suppress their ad. I think it causes more problems than it solves and I don't support attempts at censorship.

I do not like censorship any more than you do but this is an attempt to prevent dangerous propaganda, not protection from government oppression.

Este

I'll ask you the same questions I asked Ginger then. The ad, if you watch it, is advocating that people research vaccines and decide for themselves. Do you really want to be against that? What sort of an impression do you think the attempt to suppress such an ad gives?

 

[ehcks]

Why? I find it a very important distinction. People will only see the lies on their website if they make the effort to go there and check it out. To me, that's a very different thing that posting lies on a billboard that thousands cannot avoid seeing. There is nothing in the ad itself that is objectionable.

Distinction? This is a difference of.. "You should endanger the lives of your and other's children," and "We support those who wish to endanger the lives of your and other's children, go here to learn more."

You may be trying to argue on principle, but this specific ad is abhorrent evil. It is outright lies and deceit based on the fraudulent "findings" of one ex-doctor. The ex- is important here. He was stripped of his registration as a doctor in the UK and in the US for how horribly wrong he was.

And why was he doing it? He was hired to find that current MMR vaccines caused autism so his client could sell his own MMR vaccine.

So this ad is an attempt to sell a product based on lies. You've already said you're against that as a practice.

 

[Beth]

Distinction? This is a difference of.. "You should endanger the lives of your and other's children," and "We support those who wish to endanger the lives of your and other's children, go here to learn more."

Not how I would phrase it , but yes, it's a distinction that I feel is important.

You may be trying to argue on principle, but this specific ad is abhorrent evil. It is outright lies and deceit based on the fraudulent "findings" of one ex-doctor.

No, that is not what the ad says. Have you seen it? Who do you think observers will suspect of telling lies? The Mercola ad or you?

So this ad is an attempt to sell a product based on lies. You've already said you're against that as a practice.

What product are they trying to sell in the ad?

 

[Estellea]

I do not dispute that CBS has the right to not agree to air their ads if they so choose. I simply do not agree with the tactic of attempting to suppress their ad. I think it causes more problems than it solves and I don't support attempts at censorship.

I am vehemently against direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical adverts. Is that censorship? You have to consider the message and anti-vaxxers aren't a protected class.

I'll ask you the same questions I asked Ginger then. The ad, if you watch it, is advocating that people research vaccines and decide for themselves. Do you really want to be against that? What sort of an impression do you think the attempt to suppress such an ad gives?

You choose to remain ignorant of where that innocuous advert leads people; that doesn't support your contention very well. Yes, I am against deceptive advertising and it doesn't have to be a blatant lie either. If they really want people to make an informed decision, then why display their own urls? They advocate people "researching" vaccines via their own biased and false websites, that isn't research at all.

Este

 

[LarianLeQuella]

What product are they trying to sell in the ad?

Thier lies...

 

[Beth]

I am vehemently against direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical adverts. Is that censorship?

Only if you act to prevent such adverts from appearing. Simply being against something isn't censorship. Acting to prevent someone from communicating their message is censorship.

You have to consider the message and anti-vaxxers aren't a protected class.

I've considered the message. I don't consider it sufficient justification for censorship. As far as their being a protected class, no they aren't. So what? Do they need to be a protected class in order to run an ad?

You choose to remain ignorant of where that innocuous advert leads people; that doesn't support your contention very well.

What contention is that? I'm not discussing their website. I'm talking about their ad.

Yes, I am against deceptive advertising and it doesn't have to be a blatant lie either.

What is deceptive about their ad?

If they really want people to make an informed decision, then why display their own urls? They advocate people "researching" vaccines via their own biased and false websites, that isn't research at all.

People are not obliged to go to their site to do their research. They may want something different, but what the ad actually says is advocating that people research vaccines and decide for themselves. Since you didn't answer my questions, I'll repeat them. Do you really want to be against that? What sort of an impression do you think the attempt to suppress such an ad gives?

 

[Estellea]

Only if you act to prevent such adverts from appearing. Simply being against something isn't censorship. Acting to prevent someone from communicating their message is censorship.

I am also active with regards to eliminating direct-to-consumer advertising. It isn't censorship; you are applying the term a bit liberally methinks.

I've considered the message. I don't consider it sufficient justification for censorship. As far as their being a protected class, no they aren't. So what? Do they need to be a protected class in order to run an ad?
What contention is that? I'm not discussing their website. I'm talking about their ad.
What is deceptive about their ad?

They are leading people to disinformation websites and ones who hawk snake-oil for various imaginary maladies. They don't need to be a protected class to run an add, they do need to be a protected class for anyone to cry foul and censorship. Their ad directly leads people to their websites. Websites which you choose to remain doe-eyed about even though I have a thorough understanding of what they are. If you don't see a problem with that because you remain wilfully ignorant of their real message, then you really don't have much of an argument as far as censorship goes. They aren't merely telling people to inform themselves, they are telling people to inform themselves via biased sources veiled in a patina of an innocuous advert. They know what they are doing and know they can't get away with a blatantly anti-vax advert.

People are not obliged to go to their site to do their research. They may want something different, but what the ad actually says is advocating that people research vaccines and decide for themselves. Since you didn't answer my questions, I'll repeat them. Do you really want to be against that? What sort of an impression do you think the attempt to suppress such an ad gives?

Yes, I really want to be against that because it isn't an innocent advert encouraging their target audience to inform themselves. Where do you think people are going to land if they see that ad? Will they intuitively visit CHOP, or the CDC or any of the other websites with legitimate resources instead of Mercola and NVIC?

Este

 

[Beth]

I am also active with regards to eliminating direct-to-consumer advertising. It isn't censorship; you are applying the term a bit liberally methinks.

Yes, I'll agree it's a fairly liberal definition, although it's only attempted censorship. It isn't censorship unless you are successful. You have every right to advocate for such, just as I have every right to object and hope that you are not successful.

They are leading people to disinformation websites and ones who hawk snake-oil for various imaginary maladies. They don't need to be a protected class to run an add, they do need to be a protected class for anyone to cry foul and censorship.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that only members of a protected class can legitimately object to their messages being suppressed? Who are those protected classes of people and why aren't the rest of us allowed to make such complaints?

Their ad directly leads people to their websites.

Exactly. There is no deceptive information in their ad, so people are not exposed to their misinformation unless they go to the website.

Websites which you choose to remain doe-eyed about even though I have a thorough understanding of what they are. If you don't see a problem with that because you remain wilfully ignorant of their real message,

Oh my, an accusation of wilful ignorance because I don't give traffic to their website and don't want to read lies about the effect of vaccination. If the problem is their website, then petition against that. Why petition against an ad that doesn't contain any lies rather than the website that does?

then you really don't have much of an argument as far as censorship goes.

No, it's not much of an argument. I'm just explaining why I don't endorse the tactic and won't sign the petition. I use a relatively liberal definition of censorship and I don't want to support such an action.

They aren't merely telling people to inform themselves, they are telling people to inform themselves via biased sources veiled in a patina of an innocuous advert. They know what they are doing and know they can't get away with a blatantly anti-vax advert.

Exactly. There are no lies in the ad which is why I see no reason to try to get it off the air.

Yes, I really want to be against that because it isn't an innocent advert encouraging their target audience to inform themselves.

It isn't? Because I did watch the ad and that is what it appears to be to me. They may have ulterior motives, but we're discussing the ad itself and a petition to get it taken off the air. The ad itself only tells people to be informed. When people object to such an ad, it makes them look bad. The objectors come across as trying to suppress important information that parents ought to know. IMO, that activity won't inspire trust in the official recommendations for vaccinations.

Where do you think people are going to land if they see that ad? Will they intuitively visit CHOP, or the CDC or any of the other websites with legitimate resources instead of Mercola and NVIC?

Quite possibly. I would expect people to go to google and search for information on vaccines, not necessarily remember and go directly to the website advertised on a billboard. I see the choice they will make being who they will believe about vaccines. Do you think they will have more trust for the people who tell them 'do the research yourself and make up your own mind' or the people who are actively trying to suppress an advertisement that advocates that?

 

[godless dave]

Did you feel the same way about the groups that protested atheist ads on buses and billboards?

Billboards, yes.

Buses, no, because buses are publicly owned.

 

[godless dave]

They aren't making that claim in the ad. They may on their website, but that isn't the same issue.

They're the identical issue.