…says the guy who understands the “perspective.” Many people googling for information on vaccinations aren’t looking to validate their perspective. They are looking to find out information that is best for their kids. They hear some stories about vaccinations from some other mothers at school. They go home, google and end up on a site called the AVN. The site looks official, it contains “scientific” information, they want their best for their kids so they follow the advice.
It isn’t about people who “want to believe.” Its about the people who aren’t as well informed as you are and protecting them and their kids.
You know better. I know better. But this is a matter of public health and this particular organization is peddling woo but pretending that they are not.
Nothing bizarre about that at all. It maybe bizarre from your US-based perspective. And you are quoting out of context. The original complaints to the Fair Trade Ministry are in regards to " the Australian Vaccination Network’s name is confusing and has misled the public as to its operational intention."
The “operational intent” of the Australian Vaccination Network is to stop people vaccinating. The website gave the impression that they were offering unbiased accurate scientific information.
The Fair Trade Commission has a pretty clear mandate. Check out their FAQ.
Are they operating outside of their mandate? It doesn’t look like it. It doesn’t matter if a company is selling soap or toys or herbal supplements if a company wants to maintain its registration it needs to comply with the Fair Trading Act. By naming themselves the Australian Vaccination Network and then supplying information that is misleading, wrong, and “anti-vaccination” they are not complying with the appropriate legislation, hence the actions that are being taken now. It is this particular government’s duty to protect consumers from people out to rip them off and to scam them.
I think the sensible approach would be to have a reactive rather than proactive agency, that would field complaints from citizens and balance those complaints again the petition of advocates. There is no real reason a government organization has to be self-driven, except for things like OSHA, NHTSA or FDA (assuming they can be properly funded and insulated from industry influence).
I get the feeling you haven’t looked at their website. First of all, someone at the AVN appears to have been careless about keeping up its domain name; one purported AVN site is selling pills while another is a rudimentary website attacking the AVN. What seems to be the AVN’sactual site is hardly something sentient humans would mistake for an “official” website, given its ranting against mainstream medicine and its “lackeys”, comparing its opponents to racist bigots etc.
I linked to the entire NSW agency release as well as quoting what I see as its most dubious logic, so I don’t get how I’m supposedly quoting them “out of context”.
I gather that you see false pretenses in the marketing of ideas as being equivalent to deceptive advertising of products. I’m a lot more willing to concede a government role in regulating scamsters taking money from people than I am in regulating the market of ideas, as phony and repugnant as I find them in this instance.*
*Maybe this relates to the American perspective on valuing free and open speech along with extreme reluctance to have government censors limit it.
Even worse, that was a backronym (for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001).
…you are just acting “superior.” You understand the science. Millions of people do not. Stop insulting people because they don’t have the same background as you.
You are calling an eighteen year-old solo mum who dropped out of college at the age of fifteen a non-sentient human being. Its a very "entitled attitude you have. If you can’t see how someone could read an article like thisand believe it you need to get out of the house more. Do you think people won’t believe something because it rants against mainstream medicine? The article has cites and everything. You recognize if for the load of rubbish it is: whoop-de-shit. Your experiences and knowledge are not representative.
The Fair Trade Commission has decided that the name of the AVN is misleading. This is not “censorship.”
In the context of the entire statement the sentence is not bizzare, it really is that simple.
The government isn’t doing what you are claiming they are doing. They aren’t regulating “the market of ideas.” It is the point you are missing. People are free to hold whatever ideas they want. If the AVN wish to remain a legally registered Association then they need to change their name. However they can retain there current name and loose their status as an association. I don’t see the issue.
Strawman. Most of the rest of the world also value free and open speech and are reluctant to have the government censor it.
This isn’t an example of censorship. If the AVN want to enjoy the benefits of Association status then they need to comply with the rules.
I don’t think there’s any question that the AVN’s activities mislead the public. However, it’s hard to say that its name is misleading. Even assuming that the name did lead the public to believe it was a pro-vaccination group, anyone actually looking at its materials (including the hypothetical teenage mother) would presumably conclude that it wasn’t; that’s the whole point.
Eh, sort of. I think the main objection is that such names are basically borrowing authority they don’t actually have. While an agenda should be patently obvious, the government does have a legitimate interest in ensuring that the public is not easily mislead to lend weigh or creedance to the words of a private entity.
I want to second much of this. I teach a critical thinking course to dozens of students each semester who really, genuinely, actually would not be able to tell whether the information at that website was trustworthy or not. Indeed, the question wouldn’t even enter their heads in many cases, unless they’d been primed beforehand to ask themselves whether it was trustworthy. Then they might start wondering–but would have no idea how to answer the question.
In any event, the U.S. has more stringent free speech standards than most countries. The U.S. recognizes that trying to regulate what groups call themselves in order to make them more accurate is to judge what is really accurate, and the government should not be doing that. It trusts the people to decide.
It looks to me like this is based on a concern about medical information, not public policy. In the U.S. and most other countries, making false claims about accepted medical facts is subject to regulation, as are similar claims about consumer products or stuff like that.
A group that is trying to change public policy, however, would not be regulated in what it says or calls itself.
I think he’s saying that about the producers of medical products, which is true. And that is to my earlier point, it makes a difference if you are engaged in commerce, as opposed to just political speech. I would include raising money in any form as commerce.
Federal Trade Commission regulates misleading ads or claims. FDA does the same for drugs. Misleading medical claims may be regulated by state laws too.
I didn’t blame “everything” on that decision - but it did generate a bunch of vaguely or even deceptively-named groups that are aiming to influence opinion and public policy.
There is a difference (at least in the U.S.) between how we regard someone who says “I have a cancer cure, gimme $200 and I’ll send it to you” as opposed to someone who says we can cure cancer by eating magic herbs or an “alkaline diet” but doesn’t engage in commerce.
To some this may seem like an arbitrary demarcation, but I am very loath to see government get into the business of policing ideas (however stupid or repugnant) for our protection.
Once again citing the AVN affair - in the U.S. it’d be about 5 seconds before the ACLU and other organizations began denouncing a government agency taking such action. I’ve heard of no such civil liberties response in Australia.