LF: The Film VAXXED Could Be Outlawed In California, If This Bill Passes…

Title: The Film VAXXED Could Be Outlawed In California, If This Bill Passes…
Source: Activist Post
URL Source: http://www.activistpost.com/2016/08 ... ed-california-bill-passes.html
Published: Aug 23, 2016
Author: Jon Rappoport
Post Date: 2016-08-24 10:26:35 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 488
Comments: 1

“Let’s see, Mr. Reporter. You received an undercover recording of a medical researcher confessing his crimes. You posted the recording and wrote about it. You’re the one who is guilty of a crime. Next case!”

“Wait, Your Honor! That recording is vital information for the public. It shows that a vaccine considered to be safe actually causes brain damage in children.”

“No. It shows you violated the law by posting the recording. It was illegally made, and you aided and abetted and forwarded that crime. As I said, next case!”

The shocking film Vaxxed (trailer) is drawing audiences all over the country. It details the confessions of a CDC researcher, William Thompson, who states that he and his colleagues buried data in a key study on the MMR vaccine.

In the study, the vaccine was given a free pass, with assurances that it didn’t increase the risk of autism in children—when, in fact, the data showed it did increase that risk.

***The key moments in Vaxxed are audio recordings of CDC researcher Thompson confessing his sins.

But wait. Now we have a bill, AB 1671, up before the California legislature. If it passes, it could make it a crime to screen Vaxxed or even write an article about it.

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1470694951173-5'); });

Furthermore, AB 1671 specifically seeks to protect “healthcare providers” from “exposure” via “undercover recordings” documenting their crimes. Certainly, by stretching the definitions a bit, the CDC, for whom Thompson works, and Thompson himself, could be considered such healthcare providers. Lawyers could argue that position until the cows come home and hang up a case in various courts for years—while an injunction prohibiting the screening of Vaxxed remains in force.

“The bill would criminalize publishing undercover video footage of ‘health care providers’ and subject third parties, including journalists, to penalties for reporting and distributing the illegally recorded footage.” [My comment: It appears criminal penalties could be applied to anyone who posts the videos and comments on them, online. Not just reporters. And surely, audio recordings, as well as videos, would be banned.]

Cahill continues: “Under AB 1671, a journalist receiving and posting footage from an anonymous source could be punished by the state as well as be opened up to potential civil lawsuits. Whistleblowers would not be exempt from the proposal either, regardless of how they obtained the illegal footage.”

In the case of Vaxxed, the film makers received or obtained the recordings of CDC researcher Thompson and used them to make their case: Thompson was confessing to crimes he and colleagues committed at the CDC.

But if AB 1671 passes, releasing those recordings and commenting on them, in a film, could be considered a crime, punishable by fine, jail—and the film makers could also be open to lawsuits.

As bizarre as it seems, AB 1671 isn’t just targeting people who make the undercover recordings. Its focus is on reporters who receive those recordings and then use them, post them, and write about them.

Vaxxed certainly raises ominous questions about that law—and now the government of California is considering the addition of a new law that could ban Vaxxed.

“Your kids must get vaccinated, and don’t report vaccine crimes and vaccine damage, when the knowledge of that damage comes from ‘undercover recordings’.”

Do you really think all this effort is coming from some genuine concern for “protecting the children?”

If so, you’re badly mistaken. This is about naked suppression of the truth, big profits for vaccine manufacturers, and neurological damage in kids.

The law is unconstitutional and can be successfully challenged before federal courts.

However, a different tack by the vaccine companies COULD win. Silencing the critics won't work, but attacking them for slander might.

The vaccine companies could then rely on government to "prove" that vaccines are safe, thus "proving" that the anti-vaccine film is lying about them and harming them by discrediting them. Then they get monetary damages.

The libel and slander laws could be used by a court to "get" whoever publishes "Vaxxed".