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.

  • Melllvar
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The first amendment is a limit on government power rather than a grant of individual rights. Consequently, lying is protected speech under most circumstances.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      “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

      • Melllvar
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m only commenting on how the first amendment should be interpreted when it comes to lying per se.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Melllvar
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            My comments here are about lying per se and whether they’re protected speech.

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Melllvar
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                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.