Thomas Oatway | Unworthy of Constitutional Protection

Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor

I read your editorial (Dec. 10) in opposition to the Assembly Bill 2098 legislative initiative. You suggested that the science of the coronavirus treatment and protective health measures were evolving and sometimes even wrong. But you did not disclose those that you were referring to, or how they were a danger to the public. And you did not specify what alternative treatments you would like to have medical professionals be free to promote as alternatives to FDA-approved vaccines, masking and social distancing. 

I am aware of several alternative treatments that the medical community universally views as ineffective, and in some cases outright dangerous, including hydroxychloride and horse worming meds. I believe that free speech promoting these kinds of quack meds is dangerous and unworthy of constitutional protection.

While it is entirely reasonable to suggest that free speech needs to be protected, it is also a fact that some speech is not protected, such as yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. It appears that your editorial position is not intended to add anything of value to the discussion of medical best practices, but is pandering to the right-wing political propaganda that all public health protective measures are without value. That is in my opinion shameful, and potentially dangerous to the health of your readers. As journalists, you should aspire to a higher standard.

Thomas Oatway


Related To This Story

Latest NEWS