Earlier this year, I reported that District Court Judge Judge William Shubb temporarily blocked the enforcement of California’s AB 2098, a measure that punished doctors for not pushing the state-directive narratives surrounding COVID-19.
In the 30-page ruling, the judge blasted the definition of “misinformation.“
The law defines misinformation as “false information that is contradicted by contemporary scientific consensus contrary to the standard of care.” Judge Shubb called the law’s definition of misinformation “nonsense.”
The NCLA argued that “The term ‘contemporary scientific consensus’ is undefined in the law and undefinable as a matter of logic. No one can know, at any given time, the ‘consensus’ of doctors and scientists on various matters related to prevention and treatment of Covid-19. And even if such a poll could theoretically be taken, who would qualify to be polled? Only those doctors treating Covid-19 patients?
All doctors and scientists, or only those in certain fields? Who determines which fields? How often would such polls be taken to ensure the results are based on the most up-to-date science? How large a majority (or plurality) of the polled professionals qualifies as a ‘consensus’? The very existence of these questions illustrates that any attempt at a legal definition