A federal judge has blocked a new Illinois law that allows the state to penalize anti-abortion counseling centers if they use deception to interfere with patients seeking the procedure.
A federal judge has blocked a new Illinois law that allows the state to penalize anti-abortion counseling centers if they use deception to interfere with patients seeking the procedure.
I’m no lawyer, but I don’t think the first amendment gives you the right to lie to people with no consequences
it absolutely doesn’t.
Especially when you represent yourself as an expert or medical professional.
what these clinics are doing is medical fraud and malpractice… for the purpose of preventing women from getting lawful access to medical care. It’s downright vile… and 50k fines is not enough. There should be jailtime.
Sadly, it mostly does. There are exceptions, and being that this is related to medical care, it may be one of them.
It grants you the right to lie as long as you aren’t violating an existing law. Regardless of job position or standing
deleted by creator
The first amendment is a limit on government power rather than a grant of individual rights. Consequently, lying is protected speech under most circumstances.
“most circumstances” that don’t involve defrauding others for some reason.
For example, if these anti-abortion clinics are pretending to be abortion clinics and then lying about the services they provide- or the nature of those services, which they don’t even provide- to try and convince people not to get abortions…
that is fraud. and it constitutes harm. and absolutely should be treated as such.
another ‘its not actually protected’ that’s relevant is if they’re just telling absolute horror stories about, for example, women who regret having the abortion, or playing up severe complications while insisting they are in fact experts.
both are things anti-abortion clinics have done. I’m not saying these in particular are, but I’m not going to be terribly surprised to find they’re not
I’m only commenting on how the first amendment should be interpreted when it comes to lying per se.
but this isn’t about lying. this is about lying to prevent people who are seeking medical care from obtaining said medical care.
“Oh it’s okay they’re just lying” is an absurdity. they’re committing fraud, probably, and the new law seeks to address this because that this particular fraud is enough a problem that it needed it’s own law.
at least, that’s my outsider’s take on it.
My comments here are about lying per se and whether they’re protected speech.
In the context of fraud.
Shall I be more blunt? You’re full of shit.
Saying in an argument about fraud that dishonesty is protected speech is a bad faith argument. You’re allowed to lie, but you’re not allowed to break the law by misrepresenting and your business in business dealings.
There is a difference and your continued assertion that they’re the same and that the former is even relevant is bullshit. You’re also not allowed to pose as medical professionals and give patently false medical advice.
Regardless of what actions they’re taking, they don’t get to hide behind “free speech” which has never protected people from the consequences of said speech.
In the context of this conversation thread. To summarize it for you, this conversation thread is about the statement, “but I don’t think the first amendment gives you the right to lie to people with no consequences”. The answer is that generally yes it does.
You are too rude to have a meaningful conversation with, so this will be my last response.