Chances are that you have heard the phrase, “the law is sacred.” It comes with no surprise that people are wary of legislating new laws accompanied with punishment, or assigning criminality to a variety of behavior. In reasonably recent times, this has brought forward the question of criminalizing disinformation, particularly within the context of vaccinations.
It seems immediately intuitive that we should prosecute incorrect information about vaccines – after all, people’s lives are at stake. Fear mongering about the danger of vaccines may lead to elderly people actually finding themselves at danger later on, having not taken the vaccine preemptively. Those who convince others to not vaccinate create ripple effects, wherein infection and bacterial spread is far more prolific than it otherwise would have been. In a very direct sense, they are culpable for harm – both material and financial – that comes to people’s way.
Of course, it is rarely ever this simple. Criminality is not merely a matter of whether one has contributed to the creation of disutility. Are people meaningfully culpable for the spread of disinformation if they themselves do not know any better? If I was under the impression that I was delivering aid to refugees overseas, and it is intercepted by terrorists, does that make me liable for the ensuing damage those terrorists produce? Intent is always a controversial question in the application of the law, and it certainly comes into play with vaccine misinformation.
Furthermore, the handling of “information” is an intrinsically nebulous consideration to debate the criminality of. If one reposts information that was originally sourced from another individual, who is culpable for when people are hurt? Hell, governments and the forefront international organizations responsible for health information could not get things consistent for months at the beginning of the pandemic. If someone spreads misinformation, but is lucky enough that no one is there to consume it, are they equally morally culpable as one who has led to the death of 5 elderly people? In a sense, the actions of the two individuals were equal in all respects besides moral luck. What then, are we to do in the court of law?
This is an inconclusive answer, I will acknowledge, but it is a complicated matter to deliver an ultimatum upon. Information has as much power as knives and guns in today’s world, and it falls upon the test of time and precedent to observe its role in justice in the future.
Comments