Political Authoritarianism
The slippery slope argument is a line of reasoning where one or more will say that a relatively small initial step leads to a much larger chain of related steps – typically these steps are considered negative by the maker(s) of the argument. This argument can apply to politics, policies, legislation, case law, or any argument where the original step can be reasoned or suspected to grow or advance. A small snowball rolling down a hill of wet snow, picking up more snow as it moves, is often depicted as illustrating the slippery slope argument.
In California, Governor, Gavin Newsome has signed a misinformation/disinformation bill into state law which mandates that “the state medical board may discipline physicians and surgeons who spread misinformation about COVID-19 during patient care”. This can include the removal of the medical license to practice.
While this legislation includes, “during patient care” only and not media or social media, if aggrandized or advanced, misinformation at every level may eventually develop. Further, if the “doctor/patient” privilege is unconditionally mandatory at every level, how does the board unequivocally determine misinformation during patient care?
In the subject legislation, false information is any information that is “contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care”. The term ”scientific consensus” rears its lofty political head yet again.
Noteworthy is that the president of the California Medical Board Kristina Lawson is not a doctor, but a lawyer – there is only one medical doctor on the executive. In the latter days of 2021, Ms. Lawson claimed she was stalked by a group that, “peddles Covid disinformation” saying, “I’m not going to be intimidated by these terrorizing tactics.” I am uncertain how a lawyer can determinedly or academically allude to the certainty of medical misinformation; however politically, legislation may invoke affective revenge . . . hmm?
Ironically, it certainly seemed that the greatest amount of Covid misinformation from flattening the curve, to mask mandates, to vaccines preventing the disease and many other disproven directives came from government-appointed officials. It was, as far as they were concerned, “scientific consensus”, however, I am convinced that those who believe in “their scientific consensus” of Covid do not believe in the consensus science of the Great Barrington Declaration which I link here.
In essence, this California legislation which is numbered AB2098 and linked is simply another form of authoritarian government censorship. It is not meant to protect people, but rather to silence dissent.
A slippery slope argument in all of this may extend at some point to anthropogenic climate change where eco-politicians, the legacy media, government bureaucrats, and well-funded scientists constantly claim misinformation and disinformation coming from skeptics.
Not that it scientifically matters, but those proclaiming consensus in climate change have it mathematically wrong– the Global Warming Petition Project cites many more signatories in opposition than any claim of consensus for proponents. Again, not that consensus is any substance of science, but like any supposed evidentiary claims made by climate alarmists, the opposition again proves otherwise.
The progressive presses have started to use the softer-sounding term “content moderation”. They claim it is not synonymous with censorship, but it is exactly that. And note, it is always those who censor, suppress or moderate opposing content, speech, information, data, and statistics are the same ones who say our democracy is in danger.