tech37 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 7:18 am
The click-bait heading in your link is disinformation. Keep on lyin' 72
It's a 1st Amendment issue genius, and push back against actual fascism. Something you and others on here love to dubiously throw around with your bogus sense of certainty.
Your response intrigued me, tech, so I clicked through to see what was happening.
Here's what I read, a medical board instituted a policy that said that spreading medical misinformation by a doctor violates their Hippocratic oath to "first do no harm" and are subject to losing their license to practice. When doctors do so, knowingly, in any other aspect of their medical practices they are indeed subject to such. And we certainly want this to be the case.
Such is the regular regulation of the medical profession by their peers.
And yet, you see a First Amendment issue, which clearly means you need to re-read the First Amendment on "free speech".
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
First, Congress has not made a law. Second, SCOTUS has repeatedly found various regulations of speech by other government entities, eg the states, as well as private editorial of speech, to not be violations of the U.S. Constitution.
So, not First Amendment.
For instance, a person is free to libel or slander another person, but they are liable for damages if successfully sued.
A person who falsely cried fire in a theater may face criminal prosecution for endangering others.
But back to the point of licensing. We should not want doctors to provide counsel or perform operations in ways which their peers know cause harm, whether the over prescription of opioids, the use of devices that are dirty, or telling a patient in danger of death or pain for whom there is a known helpful procedure or medicine to not undertake that procedure or medicine and to instead simply 'pray it away' or 'go run a marathon' or "eat some dirt" or anything else not accepted as effective medical practice. The doctor owes a duty to provide the patient with the best available care.
But note, a person who happens to be a doctor may decide they wish to "speak" medical advice that is known by their peers to be false or misleading. They are "free" to do so, but if they do, they're subject to loss of their license as a doctor.
A doctor always has a choice as to whether he or she wishes to maintain their Hippocratic oath. They can opt out of practice if they so wish.
And here we have a powerful legislator threatening a state medical licensing board with dissolution simply because they published this policy on their website. The legislator doesn't want the public know that this is the licensing board's policy.
And you're calling the licensing board "fascist".
well, that's possible, though your rationale of "constitutional" is completely bogus.