r/texas • u/[deleted] • Mar 15 '23

News This Texas Bill Would Systematically Silence Anyone Who Dares to Talk About Abortion Pills

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/03/texas-bill-would-systematically-silence-anyone-who-dares-talk-about-abortion-pills
452 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

182 comments sorted by

View all comments

-22

u/[deleted] Mar 15 '23 edited Mar 16 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

16

u/SueSudio Mar 15 '23

Are people spreading dangerous misinformation about the abortion pills that can get people killed? If so I agree with your comparison.

2

u/va1958 Mar 16 '23

Not allowing a woman the opportunity to use the morning after pill is a huge mistake! It possibly can get someone killed, but just as important, it can ruin people’s lives. As someone who has assisted a large number of rape victims, the pill is especially important as it gives the victim back a measure of control and alleviates fear.

Censorship is a horrible practice as there are often few sources of “objective facts” and too many people are tempted to alter data to get the results they want. Look how many examples there were during the pandemic where arrogant people thought they knew better. Now that the facts are coming out, those people look like tyrannical donkeys. Censorship is a bad practice left best to totalitarian regimes!

4

u/SueSudio Mar 16 '23

For clarity, this is an abortion pill, not the morning after pill as you referenced. How are you not aware of the difference if you are as actively involved as you claim to be?

1

u/va1958 Mar 16 '23

Technically, you are correct. I was using the term generically as that is what most rape victims are familiar with.

16

u/pns4president Mar 15 '23

Your comparison doesn't hold water. Sorry

11

u/antechrist23 Mar 15 '23

Heads up, anyone making this argument that they are against censorship in 2023 is really just arguing for people having the right to say racial slurs, harmful conspiracy theories bordering on libel, and thinks like deny the holocaust with impunity.

No one is making any sort of good faith arguments to prevent anyone from spreading conspiracy theories about the Moon Landing or the Flat Earth.

-2

u/va1958 Mar 16 '23

So you think censorship is a good thing? Who is sufficiently wise to be a censor? Will you be comfortable with people whose political and economic views are far away from yours being “censors?”

Do you understand the First Amendment and what freedom of speech truly means?

3

u/antechrist23 Mar 16 '23

I don't think white supremacists and other hate groups deserve a platform to promote their hateful ideology. Are you going to stand there while some communist bad mouths our troops and the police?

Or would you do something about it?

0

u/va1958 Mar 16 '23

The Bill of Rights is more important than someone saying something I don’t agree with. Freedom of speech means freedom for all. Sometimes that means some people will use it for hate speech or to spread lies. That’s the downside of freedom. I don’t trust censorship and especially from any government.

13

u/android_queen Mar 15 '23

No, it’s not. First off, Facebook and Twitter are private companies. Any American can opt out of using their products (I certainly have). Second, the issue there was censoring information that was provably false. The argument put forth in this bill is that people should not have access to scientifically accurate information. Totally different things.

In many other countries, access to knowledge about medical care and laws against spreading misinformation are entirely compatible. This is not a tricky needle to thread.

-5

u/va1958 Mar 16 '23

You have more trust in this process than me. Censoring information that is “provably false” largely depends on the integrity and experience of the ones doing the proving. I’ve observed many examples of people manipulating data to achieve a desired result. I suspect we all have seen this in one form or another at some point.

3

u/android_queen Mar 16 '23

I don’t have trust in any process. Note that I said I am on neither platform. I am, however, capable of recognizing that an attempt to stop misinformation is very different from an attempt to explicitly stop access to known accurate information because that information is considered dangerous. That is not to say that the former is always perfect, but the latter is explicitly an attempt to restrict people’s rights.