“The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected a public school district’s decision to ban pink wristbands featuring the phrase ‘I ♥ Boobies!’ as part of a breast cancer awareness month fund raiser and educational project. The public school district’s rationale was that the speech was indecent and, under Morse [Morse v. Frederick, US 2007] and Fraser [Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, US 1986], indecent speech is presumptively disruptive regardless of its actual effects on the school’s operations. The 9-5 en banc Third Circuit did not disagree with the school’s district legal claim that indecent speech is inherently disruptive, but rejected the school district’s characterization of the bracelets as indecent. Had the judges found the speech to be indecent, the school district would have prevailed over the students.
“One should also keep in mind that five members of the en banc court disagreed with this characterization – finding the message to be indecent and therefore proscribable. As much as one would like to dismiss the dissenting judges’ views on this point as complete and utter nonsense, the Fraser/Morse framework makes the characterization of the speech as ‘lewd’ outcome determinative. The problem with this analysis is that a student wearing a breast cancer awareness wristband featuring this phrase simply does not present a serious risk of disruption to a middle school’s core pedagogical mission.”
Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr. (University of Alabama School of Law), The Disappearing First Amendment, Cambridge University Press, 2019, p.115.
The decision here discussed is BH ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area School District, 3rd Cir. 2013. The US Supreme Court declined to take the case. – I will explain why the “complete and utter nonsense” of the five dissenting judges is actually the correct point of view in this case.
The reader has understood at this stage that the point on which I will dwell is not the main issue discussed by Prof. Krotoszynski. The point he makes is that lewdness in the context of students wearing wristbands on their campus should not be “outcome determinative” in deciding a free speech issue, because the regulatory powers of school authorities aim at preventing disruption inside the educational context and such behavior is not disruptive whether one construes the message on the wristbands as lewd or not.
Therefore, when Prof. Krotoszynski calls the dissenting judges’ view “complete and utter nonsense,” it is only a side comment. That is, to begin with, a singular rhetorical figure to reserve one’s most pungent and bellicose remarks to alleged side aspects of a problem. Compare the sharply dismissive “complete and utter nonsense” with the rest of the passage and you’ll find the phrase is isolated in the argument. It is as if Prof. K. were willing to go out of his mind for a problem he alleges not even to be discussing. Far for being a rhetorical figure, it betrays Prof. K.’s true mind: He is incensed that some judges, even in the minority, could have found the speech obscene. Of course, having asserted that the point is only incidental, he does not tell his readers why it is “complete and utter nonsense.” It just goes without saying, seemingly.
Precisely this point will I discuss, leaving aside the question whether that particular speech should be deemed disruptive or not, but at the same time agreeing with Fraser that lewd speech is subject to the regulatory power of school authorities. That this agreement of mine is the consequence of my views on obscenity will become, I think, crystal clear from the reasoning.
“Affirming, the Court held that, under the First Amendment, the students’ bracelets could not be categorically banned by the school district. The bracelets were part of a nationally recognized breast-cancer-awareness campaign and were not plainly lewd and because (sic) they commented on a social issue. The Court also held that the school district failed to show that the bracelets threatened to substantially disrupt the school.” (LexisNexis website on BH ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area School District)
Contrary to Prof. K., LexisNexis presents the court’s decision as based on two seemingly separate issues: on the one hand, the court found that the bracelets were not “plainly lewd” and on the other hand there was no evidence that the bracelets were disruptive. However, Prof. K. is certainly correct to state that the wristbands would have been disruptive ipso facto if found lewd, because this is the substance of the Fraser precedent. Therefore, the school authorities had intended their claim according to which the wristbands are obscene as proof that the wristbands are disruptive; the issues are not separate (although there may be several possible sources of disruption besides obscenity). The last sentence in LexisNexis’s quote should be, therefore: “The Court also held that the school district failed to show that the bracelets threatened to substantially disrupt the school IN OTHER WAYS,” in order to be quite consistent with Fraser.
Again, it isn’t the articulation between obscenity and disruption in the legal treatment of such free speech cases that I want to discuss primarily, but mainly the claim itself that the bracelets are not obscene.
The bracelets read “I ♥ Boobies!” I love boobies. Where in the world is such an utterance as this not a serious breach of etiquette, is the simple question one must ask from the outset. And the answer is, in sum: Nowhere.
If one male student at that school had told a female student he vaguely knew: “I love your boobies,” that would have been a horrible outrage. This was so before feminism existed, will still be so if feminism ceases to exist, and such as feminist sensitivity now exists it is indeed a horrible outrage. It is more than a gaffe, it is the reprobate endorsement of the womanly body’s sexual objectification. One must simply never utter such words except, perhaps, in the intimacy of one’s sexual life. The normal reaction to such words in a social setting is a slap in the face, and if the woman has a brother the latter may have a few words to say too: “Did you say ‘I love your boobies’ to my sister?” and after the slap comes a punch. Even assuming that such reactions could be somewhat extreme, everybody feels the truth of what I’m saying, and if we don’t hear of such slaps and punches more often it is probably because most people know they must not say such words and avoid saying them. (Among groups of teenage boys and girls, this kind of speech may be more frequent, as boys want to test girls, want to know how much girls can take, with an escalation to be expected for those girls who, in order to remain part of a group, accept to be talked like that; for these, unwanted pregnancies are perhaps the least of various foreseeable evils.)
Even if not addressed to one or some women in particular, the words ‘I love boobies,’ when not merely reported for some purpose, will be found a serious breach of etiquette in about all social settings. The only exceptions I can think of are conversations either (a) between people who are on the most intimate footing or (b) in groups where members agree beforehand they will be talking of those things, namely the members’ sexual tastes. In both cases, the general rules of etiquette are suspended and new ones apply on which all participants in the interaction agree as a result of long acquaintance or accepted intimacy, in a, or of stipulated rules (“we’ll be talking of our sexual tastes”), in b. In other situations, where an idiosyncratic micro-etiquette is not agreed upon tacitly or expressly, the general etiquette of society at large obtains, and let me tell Prof. K. that according to that etiquette neither sexual objectification nor hinting at the underlying impulses toward it as natural therefore normal, is accepted. It is not accepted because it is obscene. In a nutshell no one wants to hear ‘I love boobies’ without prior agreement which cannot be presumed.
One will pass me the use of the word etiquette, which perhaps has an elitist or snobbish flavor about it, even as I deal with customs that I describe as enjoying full recognition in the society at large. The notion that I merely would be talking of upper-class standards that are nothing to the rest of the people, if not a target of endless jokes, is what I will be dealing with now. This notion is entertained by what I shall call ‘advertised minds’ (Du Plessis) and rests on a distorted perception of the real world.
(From Erik Du Plessis’s book, The Advertised Mind: Groundbreaking insights into how our brains respond to advertising [Millward Brown, 2008], an insider’s account of the neuroscience of advertising, I am only borrowing the phrase ‘advertised mind’ –advertised in the sense I figure of shaped by advertisement– as the book has little to say on legal and sociological implications of advertising outside the market researcher’s perspective.)
What I have been describing in i is a taboo. We may, in the western world, fancy ourselves free from taboos and there is in our midst a whole sector of speech agency that has set a rule of making people believe there is no such thing as taboos, a speech agency named commercial speech. It has made this attitude a rule because, short of making us believe this way, it could not use taboos to its own ends. The utterance ‘I love boobies’ is taboo and commercial speech vindicates a right to use taboos as sales pitch. Obviously the power of such a pitch must be great, it cannot fail to attract people’s attention.
Furthermore, commercial speech cannot do this without a convention that when it, and it alone, makes use of taboos, read obscenity, it is not taboos and obscenity but something quite different. When commercial speech is obscene, by convention it is not obscene. Admittedly, the convention does not extend (yet) over the whole field of possible obscene speech; there are limits.
Whereas common sense has it that taboos are arbitrary conventions, in truth it is the exception for which we make room by waiving to treat obscene commercial speech as taboo like any other public speech, that is the most obvious convention of the two, because it lacks the thinnest link with our essence whereas the reason why we do not want to be reminded daily of our biological processes is self-evident as we see ourselves as free agents only partially determined by natural impulses.
To take an example, the s- and f-words are vulgar precisely because they remind us of our biology. It is only an apparent paradox that they are used all the time – as cursing words. We often curse, true enough, and at the same time these are the words no one wants to hear, vulgar words. Their use has become so widespread in informal speech, anyway, that we have become blind to the actual biological processes they depict when we hear the words, most of the time.
Yet I deny commercial speech the right to use obscene language with people not minding.
I love boobies, therefore I fight breast cancer: What is indecent in this? – It is twice indecent, compounded indecency. (1) Appropriation of obscenity for some social or commercial goal does not cancel the obscenity. Disrespect for a woman’s character is not mitigated by the fact that it comes in a double entendre; on the contrary, it is aggravated by underhandedness. (2) When, therefore, underhandedness is given out as a valid defence, the aggravating factor parading as its opposite is all the more outrageous.
Admitting that ‘I love boobies’ is not proper talk among people, that is to say, will elicit among listeners at best embarrassment and more often than not displeasure and anger (save in the circumstances I described), then considering the usual effect as obviated when and because it comes from commercial speech is to load an illegitimate burden on people at the receiving end. As a matter of fact, this is making people inferiors in an unequal relationship with commercial speech. In an unequal relationship, the inferiors have no choice but to repress their natural reactions when the superiors disregard the inferiors’ feelings. Yet I see no reason why people should be treated as inferior to the agencies entitled to making commercial speech.
Failing to perceive the situation in this way is a sign of being an ‘advertised mind,’ a mind whose general notions are shaped in large part or entirely by pervasive commercial speech.
That it is a nonprofit, such as a “breast-cancer-awareness” organization perhaps, which uses marketing techniques borrowed from private business advertising makes no difference. That would very odd if the law allowed “nationally recognized campaigns” to use methods it considers inappropriate for private pursuits. In fact, as commercial speech is not as fully protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution as, say, political speech, campaigns, no matter how nationally recognized, relevant and important, that make use of commercial speech methods, are equally limited by the Constitution in the attention-calling, neuroscience techniques they may use. The question, in BH ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area School District, really boils down to this: Is “I ♥ Boobies!” indecent? Justifying indecency by the goals aimed at (the end justifies the means), namely breast cancer awareness, is a clandestine extension of commercial speech’s constitutional rights.
Same as LexisNexis has, perhaps correctly as to the 3rd cir. court’s reasoning, described Hawk as having two separate issues, (1) lewdness and (2) disruptiveness of speech, whereas Fraser coalesces the two in one lewd-disruptive characterization, it also make separate issues of (1) the national campaign (“The bracelets were part of a nationally recognized breast-cancer-awareness campaign”) and (2) lewdness (“AND were not plainly lewd”), whereas it seems obvious the majority has excused the lewdness on the national campaign: It cannot be obscene because we are talking of breast cancer – not breast grabbing.
When commercial speech makes use of obscenity, by convention we are supposed to take it as a form of irony (au second degré). A nonprofit organization or business has no natural, biological motive to say it loves boobies, therefore it is humor, a humorous, cheeky wink. Well, no. If a business exhibited penises on posters to sell goods, we would find it obscene regardless of whether someone in the advertising agency is a pathological exhibitionist or not. The trick is to attract attention through the intrusive, obstreperous display of what no one wants to see or hear. Find a taboo, usually in the field of the obscene, plaster all walls with it under a conventional label of irony and the jig is up. The deed will be positively valued, as defiance against the constraints of etiquette, usually by the frustrated who believe their natural impulses are held in fetters by inimical, unnatural social forces, and by the young who still have no sex life. For those, commercial speech dons the guise of liberators.
This is how I read the phrase “plainly lewd.” When something is “not plainly lewd,” that means it is lewd (but not plainly so here by virtue of the irony). However, the Fraser precedent does not ask that speech be “plainly lewd” for authorities to step in. I believe the majority in Hawk has found the lewd speech excusable in the context of commercial speech for breast cancer awareness. Yet judges should know that, with obscenity, context is often immaterial, for sometimes courts exclude the public from hearings when the case is too risqué; that is, even sheer reporting, even reporting with the express intention to condemn and contemn what must be condemned and contempted, is deemed potentially offensive.
Another problem with such finding is that speech tends to be arbitrarily defined according to the speaker. When it is our good friend Mr Commercial Speech, best known for his delightful epigram “I love boobies, therefore I fight breast cancer,” it is not obscene, whereas a rap singer who loves boobies is at risk of prosecution (well, maybe not all of them).
In sum, conventions declaring indecency innocuous in the context of commercial speech cannot be valid, they are unacceptable, as is every mental process based on such unwritten conventions. Therefore, the five dissenting justices in BH ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area School Dist. were in the right.
According to a note in Krotoszynski’s book, one dissenting judge argued the bracelets were lewd because “‘I ♥ Boobies!’ can reasonably be interpreted as inappropriate sexual double entendre.” This, to be sure, borders on “complete and utter nonsense,” however not, as K. would have it, because the message cannot reasonably be interpreted as inappropriate sexual double entendre but because it cannot be interpreted otherwise except by the blind, unreasoned following of a convention. It is true the message can reasonably be interpreted as sexual but this is not the relevant aspect of it, which is, in fact, that it cannot reasonably be interpreted otherwise.
The national breast awareness campaign used the techniques of commercial speech and most certainly contracted with an ad agency that came off with the ‘I love boobies’ pitch. A change of judicial state of mind regarding commercial speech is long overdue. When a double entendre dawns upon one in commercial speech, I suggest not to treat it as a blunder or mistake but as intentional save proof to the contrary, because advertisers are professionals whose task is to design messages and the rational expectation is therefore that the content they produce is intentional; but again this goes against the irrational convention that prevails among us regarding commercial speech, where lewd (or other taboo-ridden content) is not lewd.
Besides, it should be of concern that vindication of student free speech revolves around commercial speech. The media Slate called BH ex rel. Hawk v. Easton Area School Dist. the case that “could decide student free speech” (Aug 9, 2013); that is, student free speech could be decided by a case where students’ speech consists in passively adopting some commercial pitch made by others.
Another group psychology phenomenon might be at play with the wristbands. As they are worn by women, and females are the natural object of lewd remarks on breasts by males, there would be some sexism awareness campaign too about the bracelets. When a group of people is the habitual object of some pejorative image and associated words, members of the group may adopt figures of the stereotype among themselves as a defence mechanism. I think the typical example is the use of the n-word among blacks. More recently we have seen followers of candidate and then president Donald Trump call themselves ‘deplorables’ after Hillary Clinton had used the word in a dismissive comment. Other examples may be found. – Understood in this way the bracelets would be integral speech. However, such message, admitting it were there (which I am willing to grant), is adulterated by its commercial speech origin, and even if it deflected its intrinsic lewdness by being a message from victims, actual or in solidarity, of lewd unwanted remarks about breasts –deflected it as far as the victims themselves are concerned–, it cannot cancel the inherent obscenity of the message save by virtue of an irrational convention forced upon the society by commercial speech.
Furthermore, if male students wore the bracelets, it would be hard to determine if they embraced the same feminist cause or rather intended a reversal to the primary meaning, this time as a reaction to a feminist campaign. The disruptive potential of the wristbands understood in this way is far from negligible, considering the accessory could throw students into a renewed embittered battle of the sexes on campus. Complaints would arise such as: “He flashed his bracelet at me!”, bracelet flashing would become a rampant form of sexist bullying. Even seen in this light, the school authorities were right to step in.
(The dissenting judge quoted in iii may have had such thoughts in mind when he wrote that the message can reasonably be interpreted as sexual double entendre, for instance if the bracelets were worn by male students in reaction to a feminist campaign, in which case I owe the judge an apology.)
Abortion Charters Ready
Mississippi Officially Asks Supreme Court To Overturn Roe v. Wade. (Breaking911): The brief continues, “The only workable approach to accommodating the competing interests here is to return the matter to ‘legislators, not judges.’… The national fever on abortion can break only when this Court returns abortion policy to the states – where agreement is more common, compromise is more possible, and disagreement can be resolved at the ballot box.”
Another scenario is to leave the matter to judges and they make abortion unconstitutional over the whole territory of the Union. – If you return abortion to the states, abortion will be a matter of two-day trips to the right state.
They think returning abortion to the states will guarantee the prohibition in red states. They do not even look for a federal bill, which would be repealed and then revoted and then repealed again and then voted again and then canceled and so on, they want such legislation for red states that have remained red from time immemorial (you know what I mean). But the problem is the blue states will remain open for “abortion charters” from red states year in year out unless the Supreme Court declares abortion unconstitutional.
One may say the difference between criminalization in some states and criminalization at federal level is only one of scope since charters can cross national borders same as they can make interstate flights. However, the difference is more substantial than that as it is more difficult to plan an abortion abroad and this guarantees that the legislation will yield some results in terms of diminishing abortion figures (whereas the possibility of interstate flight would greatly hamper the legislation’s purpose).
Another possibility is to explore legal sanctions against people traveling to other states or countries in order to commit felonies according to state or federal legislation.
Back to the Future Legislation
You’ve got those state bills passed (Texas to name one state [perhaps the first and only so far]) that declare abortion will be banned in the state no sooner than Roe v. Wade is overturned.
What is this? It is either mere incantation (not proper lawmaking) or something I can’t believe. Imagine Roe v. Wade is overturned at a time when the legislative houses of Texas support abortion, I can’t believe the incantatory bill can be set in motion, it’s as if it never existed.
Now that I have said this, I will think about it and tell you later why this is so.
Imagine the state legislature is for abortion and the governor is against it when Roe v. Wade is overturned.
As head of the executive the governor says it is his duty to implement the bill that was passed years ago, which says something like “As soon as Roe v. Wade is reversed, without further ado abortion is banned in Texas.” He says it is his duty to implement the law like any other standing law and the fact that the present legislature did not adopt it is completely immaterial; after all the present legislature did not adopt all currently standing laws.
But the legislature says: “The governor is bound to implement standing laws but the bill in question cannot be standing because it is a mere incantation. The past legislature had no constitutional power to bind in back to the future fashion the present legislature against our will. The bill is void.”
It is important that the legislators do not concede the law is standing because then they would have to repeal it by a legislative act but the governor would veto their act (the lawmakers would have to override the veto, which might be out of their reach).
The principle to bear in mind is that a legislative act must be binding for the legislature that passes it in order to bind future legislatures too (by binding I mean that the act is normative at the time the legislature passes it). Otherwise it is an incantatory act and must remain so forever, that is, it never stands. If such a law could stand, that would mean the legislature can decide what others’ will is, but actual lawmakers can only express what their will is. With the statutes in question the legislature says, in fact, “Were Roe v. Wade overturned today, we would ban abortion without further ado” but it must leave it to the actual legislature that lives a reversal to decide what it wants to do.
To avoid any confusion, the words present and actual can be synonyms but here I use them as opposites. These laws claim present lawmakers are actual lawmakers in the future too but this is not to be assumed in any circumstance (even if, as a historical fact, which is on an altogether different plane, Texas has been an uncontested red state). Lawmakers pass either acts that are normative, that is, binding at the time they pass it, or unbinding resolutions and declarations that cannot bind a future legislature either without an express act of the latter to that effect.
“Petit larceny, as a hate crime.” This is nuts and you know it. (See my indictment of hate crime legislation in Law 20.)
All countries except the USA must be inhabited by apes, otherwise why would they need Ape Speech Laws?
It’s true the European Court of Human Rights says free speech is not an absolute human right, but to be honest the ECHR is not an absolute court either.
Chicanos and the Inconsistencies of U.S. Law
In Hernandez v. State of Texas (1954) the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applied not only to the concept of races, namely blacks as opposed to whites, but also to nationalities, i.e. classes, and that Mexican Americans (whom I hereafter call Chicanos as they themselves call today if I am not mistaken) are such a nationality or class.
The Texas courts had ruled that Chicanos are whites and that the Fourteenth Amendment is aimed at protecting not whites but the former slaves, blacks. (The special issue of the case was jury trial but here I will leave that aside.)
Chicanos are whites under U.S. law although most of them are mestizos in their countries of origin. Obviously they are not blacks (most of them – but there are a few blacks in Mexico) and the Texan courts, narrowly looking at the 14th Amendment, claimed to know two races only, blacks and whites.
I believe this could also be the result of the Immigration Act of 1924 or Johnson-Reed Act. Notwithstanding the fact, scorned time and again by scholars of the liberal and neoconservative veins alike, that Congress made extensive use of eugenics expertise to create national quotas adverse to the coming of Southern and Eastern Europeans, migrants from Mexico and other Latin-American countries were untouched by the law. This is evidence that private interests prevailed on said expertise. South-Western states wanted to continue using cheap agricultural labor (including children) and in the nineteen-twenties had started to set up maquiladoras north of the border (for instance Farah Clothing in El Paso, Texas). From a eugenicist’s point of view, the very expert standpoint called by Congress, mestizos in no way could have been viewed as less detrimental to the genetic make-up of the nation than, say, Italians, which coming was restricted by the Act.
Thus, while Congress limited immigration from large parts of Europe for the good of the United States on racial grounds, it set no limitation on mestizos from south of the border. How could courts see mestizos otherwise than as whites then? (The 1924 Act remained in vigor until 1965.)
In Hernandez v. State of Texas the Supreme Court found ample evidence that there existed a form of segregation of Chicanos on the ground: “They discovered a county-wide distinction between ‘white’ and ‘Mexican’ persons. At least one restaurant prominently displayed a sign that declared, ‘No Mexicans Served.’ Additionally, until a few years earlier, some Mexican American children attended segregated schools and were forced to drop out by fifth or sixth grade.” (Oboler S., 2005, via Wkpd) Although I find the words “at least one restaurant” unsupportive of the conclusion, because if the Court had found more than one restaurant would it not have said what number it was rather than the vague “at least one”? and on the other hand one restaurant county-wide refusing to serve Mexicans is evidence of the owner’s idiosyncrasy rather than of institutionalized discrimination, I believe the Court’s findings are true, because as Texas had its own Jim Crow laws I assume Texans would not make much difference between Negroes and Chicanos even though the 1924 Act said (at least en creux [in hollow]) the latter were whites† – said so under obvious lobbying of plantation and maquiladora owners in need of cheap labor, and in disregard of congressional expertise (eugenics).
Hernandez v. State of Texas “was a major triumph for the ‘other White’ concept, the legal strategy of Mexican-American civil-rights activists from 1930 to 1970. … It was replaced in 1971 by Cisneros v. Corpus Christi ISD, which recognized Hispanics as an identifiable minority group.” (Texas State Historical Association [TSHA])
Note that Chicanos being whites was for Texan courts an argument against, in the current interpretation since Hernandez, full acknowledgment of their rights. As the solution of the Supreme Court in Hernandez and Cisneros is that Hispanics’ rights must be specially protected because they are an identifiable minority (‘the other whites’), the two combined does not bode well for non-Hispanic whites in the foreseeable future as their majority becomes thinner, for it is this majority status that is thought to call for special legal protection of minorities and a time may come when the majority status exists no more de facto while all its de jure consequences are maintained because that is found convenient by a new majority of protected minorities…
†The assertion will seem overstretched to many but in the final analysis the question boils down to this: When were Hispanics first considered whites in the U.S. while a large majority of migrants from Latin America are mestizos, and most mulattoes, on the other hand, were considered blacks (one-drop rule: “any person with even one ancestor of black ancestry –one drop of black blood– is considered black”)? More precisely: Is it since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment or since the exemption of Latin Americans from the quotas in the Johnson-Reed Act or since another date?
US population 328M
July 22, 162k vaccinated people in US.
July 7, 5,208 dead after taking vaccine (VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]: fact checkers claim no causality is proven but we’ll take the figure as a reliable estimate of the so-called, acknowledged “vaccinal risk”)
Covid death toll: 610K. That’s 1 American out of 538.
Vaccine death toll: 162k/5,208 = 1/31,000.
When people focus on the 5,000+ deaths and make an argument against vaccination out of it, the figures don’t really support it. Or do they? Can governments sacrifice individuals for the public good? Even if a compulsory vaccination campaign’s death toll were known beforehand to be 1/31,000 or fewer, can it be adopted? I thought the government could not sacrifice even one individual save in time of war.
Does the French government, by instituting a sanitary pass (a vaccination certificate compulsory for all kinds of social activities), try to eschew its responsibility for the vaccine death toll? As several vaccines are already compulsory for newborns, why is the state’s responsibility not acknowledged in those vaccine’s death toll? (All vaccines must have a death toll as “vaccinal risk” is something real for all vaccines and who but the state that makes vaccination compulsory for the sake of public welfare is responsible for the death of individuals from vaccination?)
Were the US government to pass a compulsory vaccination bill, it would allow for the death of 1 person out of 31,000 in order to stop a 1 out of 538 virus death toll. Mathematically that would make the eventual death toll 57 times fewer.
The vaccine death toll, however, is random (as far as I know we cannot predict who will die), whereas the covid death toll is more predictable (the old and unhealthy will die in large proportions). With vaccination you are replacing Darwinian selection (the old and unhealthy will die from covid) by randomness (less people will die from vaccination but at random).
Je suis opposé à la vaccination forcée car c’est antidarwinien.
Selon mes calculs, à partir de statistiques officielles (5.208 morts déclarés au VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] sur 162.000 vaccinés), le taux de léthalité du vaccin aux États-Unis est d’environ 1/31.000 (un mort à la suite du vaccin sur 31.000 vaccinés).
Le taux de mortalité dû au vaccin aux US est un lourd 1/538 (plus de 610.000 morts selon les autorités).
En comparant les deux taux de léthalité, covid et vaccin, la mortalité par le covid (1/538) est certes bien plus importante que celle par le vaccin (1/31.000) : 57 fois plus élevée. Cependant, la léthalité de la vaccination est, à ma connaissance, imprévisible, tandis que la léthalité du covid l’est bien plus : on sait qu’elle touche surtout les personnes âgées et « à risque » (en raison d’un mauvais état de santé).
On peut voir le covid comme une réaction naturelle à la surpopulation. En rendant la vaccination obligatoire, on remplace une morbidité naturelle et darwinienne (élimination des vieux et des faibles) par une morbidité, certes théoriquement moins élevée, mais complètement aléatoire. (Je dis théoriquement car d’autres moyens de prophylaxie existent à côté de la vaccination.)
La vaccination doit donc rester un choix. Ceux qui se vaccinent sont immunisés par le vaccin, ceux qui refusent de l’être tomberont peut-être malades et, s’ils survivent (avec de bonnes chances de leur côté s’ils sont en bonne santé), ils seront immunisés contre la maladie par la maladie elle-même.
N.B. Ce raisonnement ne tient pas compte d’éventuelles séquelles de la maladie qui pourraient en soi, même en l’absence de léthalité, justifier la prophylaxie vaccinale. Perdre le sens du goût, par exemple, dans certains cas de covid, est sans doute assez préoccupant pour entrer dans ce cadre, même si c’est peu comparable aux séquelles de la poliomyélite. D’un autre côté, ce raisonnement ne tient pas non plus compte des autres effets indésirables possibles du vaccin, des autres « adverse events » du VAERS, dont certains peuvent être graves sans, je suppose, être davantage prévisibles que les cas de mort subite.
« Ce sont des criminels », dit à la télé M. le professeur en parlant des « personnes qui propagent la désinformation sur les réseaux sociaux ». – Soit. Quel est le mobile du crime ?