Well, in the US, it has to be a cause in the "clear and present" sense to be considered as not protected speech. Given the vagaries of epidemics, it is nearly impossible to imagine enough people citing a single instance of speech as being the proximate cause for their children's lack of vaccinations, and also having that group of people being key in an epidemic spreading, all the while imagining that there is not a lawyer somewhere in the country who couldn't at least claim that a "resonable person" would see the speech as a benign suggestion . . .
I almost (N.B., I said "almost") wish it were easier to curtail speech when I hear about things like this, but our intelligent speech simply must overwhelm the pro-disease speech.
We should be as loud as they are.
No, we should be louder and more obnoxious. To all those who argue that we shouldn't stoop to "their" level, I remind you all that the USA is a nation at "their" level, and is not likely to be coaxed onto the ladder of awareness by offering citations to peer-reviewed studies.
We need ads with naked hunks imploring housewives to vaccinate.
We need ads implying that not vaccinating your children will make you fat.
It's America (well, it's the USA in this case, but Canada is watching hockey right now), and America is not going to listen to a reasoned argument.
Yes, it's dirty and wrong, but loud and stupid is the only language that gets airtime.
There's some merit to this. I generally think the high road approach is the one to take in most situations, "don't stoop to their level" and all of that, but really, how do you counter propaganda and lies when no one wants to hear about anything but propaganda and lies?
I think that's one of the reasons that stuff like this can get headlines so quickly, and spread so easily: people like quick, easy answers they don't have to think about, they like being told what to think. Science and skepticism try not to tell you what to think, but give you the facts and let you figure it out, or at most, give and answer with supporting facts that you're supposed to check yourself. When science does make an argument from authority, the authority making the claim is usually an expert in a field that the public doesn't even understand - which is exactly why that scientist qualifies as an authority, and exactly why the public doesn't understand why they should listen to him/her.
We need a PR wing, I think. I would hesitate to go as far as the "vaccinate because it'll keep you from getting fat" sort of stuff, but there ought to be more stuff out there promoting good science, sound advice from educated people instead of celebrities or anyone with internet access, and general critical thinking. Further, the public seems to have the long-term memory of a goldfish, so people need to be reminded of the things they take for granted.
e.g. Why don't people die of smallpox or come down with polio all of the time? And how many people used to, before vaccination, how many are likely to if we stop vaccinating, etc.
The other problem with this sort of thing is that there's just enough skepticism in the public mind to not trust ads like this that are sponsored by the people selling the product they claim is beneficial. (That whole "big pharma is teh EVUL!" side of the anti-vax nonsense.)
But I think we should get out there and speak up. Get on TV, on the talk shows and the radio. Every time someone launches into something as harmful as anti-vax, we should fire back twice as hard. I think this should be done with all forms of woo. Psychics, astrologers, ghost hunters, ufologists, Anything that promotes credulous thinking, especially for self-serving reasons, should be fought and exposed as the lie it is.
And, before I convince myself I'm some sort of rabid zealot, let's remember that, if these things are true, they'll stand up to the criticisms, right? If there really are ghosts out there, no amount of saying "there are no ghosts" will make them disappear - any more than saying "there are ghosts" will make ghosts appear where there are none. If someone IS right about vaccines or astrology, or whatever, then questioning them, challenging them is the best way to help them prove it. But if there isn't any truth to their claim, then it needs to be exposed and the public needs to understand WHY.
OK, I tend to ramble. Sorry. Hopefully someone sees my point, though.
