"Let's see, Mr. Reporter. You received an undercover recording of a
medical researcher confessing his crimes. You posted the recording and
wrote about it. You're the one who is guilty of a crime. Next case!"
"Wait, Your Honor! That recording is vital information for the public.
It shows that a vaccine considered to be safe actually causes brain
damage in children."
"No. It shows you violated the law by posting the recording. It was
illegally made, and you aided and abetted and forwarded that crime. As I
said, next case!"
Buckle up.
The shocking film
Vaxxed is drawing audiences all over
the country. It details the confessions of a CDC researcher, William
Thompson, who states that he and his colleagues buried data in a key
study on the MMR vaccine.
In the study, the vaccine was given a free pass, with assurances that it
didn't increase the risk of autism in children---when, in fact, the
data showed it did increase that risk.
***The key moments in Vaxxed are audio recordings of CDC researcher Thompson confessing his sins.
But wait. Now we have a bill, AB 1671, up before the California
legislature. If it passes, it could make it a crime to screen Vaxxed or
even write an article about it.
Those recordings of Thompson could be labeled "undercover," and "illegal," and therefore make them the target of AB 1671.
Furthermore, AB 1671 specifically seeks to protect "healthcare
providers" from "exposure" via "undercover recordings" documenting their
crimes. Certainly, by stretching the definitions a bit, the CDC, for
whom Thompson works, and Thompson himself, could be considered such
healthcare providers. Lawyers could argue that position until the cows
come home and hang up a case in various courts for years---while an
injunction prohibiting the screening of Vaxxed remains in force.
Nick Cahill, at the Courthouse News Service, reports on AB 1671 (
"Abortion Clinic Sting Videos Sprout Free-Speech Battle", Thursday, August 11, 2016):
"The bill would criminalize publishing undercover video footage of
'health care providers' and subject third parties, including
journalists, to penalties for reporting and distributing the illegally
recorded footage." [My comment: It appears criminal penalties could be
applied to anyone who posts the videos and comments on them, online. Not
just reporters. And surely, audio recordings, as well as videos, would
be banned.]
Cahill continues: "Under AB 1671, a journalist receiving and posting
footage from an anonymous source could be punished by the state as well
as be opened up to potential civil lawsuits. Whistleblowers would not be
exempt from the proposal either, regardless of how they obtained the
illegal footage."
In the case of Vaxxed, the film makers received or obtained the
recordings of CDC researcher Thompson and used them to make their case:
Thompson was confessing to crimes he and colleagues committed at the
CDC.
But if AB 1671 passes, releasing those recordings and commenting on
them, in a film, could be considered a crime, punishable by fine,
jail---and the film makers could also be open to lawsuits.
And of course, Vaxxed could be banned from all theaters in California.
As bizarre as it seems, AB 1671 isn't just targeting people who make the
undercover recordings. Its focus is on reporters who receive those
recordings and then use them, post them, and write about them.
This lunatic attack on free speech coordinates tightly with the infamous
2015 California law, SB277, which made vaccinating California school
children mandatory.
Vaxxed certainly raises ominous questions about that law---and now the
government of California is considering the addition of a new law that
could ban Vaxxed.
No comments:
Post a Comment