Nasal Diagram Of Dogs

Theme Discussion: Balance between freedom of expression and protection of citizens

DDL This not only protects the tangible health and finances of the public, would also defend the moral value of the separation between true and false based on the scientific method. Certainly it is not easy, because the boundaries are sometimes uncertain. So it's a matter of choice: we want to be cautious and move the limit to protect the welfare of citizens, or want to gamble and move the limit to the protection of freedom of expression? Let's talk.

1. Message types to be restricted. Profit? Health? All of them?

Now it is very hot (... just) the issue of global warming. There are increasingly compelling evidence that the warming has human causes. Many insist that the man has nothing to do. I
has been pointed out: we do, we put in prison those who say that the warming has causes external to man?
Certainly not! In the definition of "message" (Article 1, paragraph a)), are only those that promote an object or an activity or practice (although not involving a sale). Does not prevent the spread of an idea.
In general, this certainly does not require DDL to settle scientific questions more or less open. Article. 1 point), and art. 4, paragraph 7, they say it clearly: the committee decided on the basis of what at one time was considered true by most scientists.

For homeopathic medicines, for example, science official says that a homeopathic medicine has the same curative effect of an orange, but there are companies that earn millions by selling them and people who drink orange juice instead of treating it seriously. In this case, until the scientific debate is still open (if so) I would say to prevent people cure cancer with oranges. So, given that anyone can speak freely about an idea, an issue to be clarified:

If this idea is contrary to current scientific knowledge:

• legitimately exercise-based practice on it and get paid?
• è lecito vendere un prodotto basato su di essa
• le due cose, possono essere lecite solo se non riguardano la salute? o sempre?

Commentate.



2. Un compromesso: l'etichetta 'Questo prodotto (...o pratica) NON ha basi scientifiche e non ha mai dimostrato di funzionare in condizioni di controllo'

Mi hanno suggerito di introdurre questa etichetta. In una prima versione di questo DDL, l'avevo prevista per quei prodotti e pratiche di dubbia (o nessuna....) efficacia (fiori di Bach, omeopatici, pranoterapeuti ecc...). But then, considering the example of the word "damages your health" on cigarette packets, I said, the tobacco in cigarettes is still overflowing, people continue to die of lung cancer and people smoke in peace. Sure, it's better than nothing! Then:

introduce the label and the warnings or are banned and just? Commented.