There is a scene in the movie Denial where the judge presiding over a libel case asks the question - if a person actually believes the things he is claiming based on some deep prejudice is holds, then can he still be accused of lying. In this context it was about holocaust denial. It was a satisfying movie to watch but this particular question gave much food for thought given the times we live in.
There are people who believe that the pandemic is a hoax and living their lives based on such belief. The source of the belief could have roots in political or other prejudice but the person holding it is likely not lying. To that end, if they go around asserting their views and trying to create more awareness of it they would not be propagating a lie but the harm they cause in the process is immense. This review of the movie makes a great point about the absurdity for needing to defend the patently obvious.
.. no one would dream of asking Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin to share a podium or TV studio with someone who believed the moon landings were faked.
Yet in reality the author had to fend off the libel lawsuit by a holocaust denier and it was not entirely given that she would prevail. Her legal team certainly did not take this casually. Made me think that giving up on people who believe in conspiracy and hoax theories can do a lot of damage if these views get to propagate unchecked in acquiescence to their right to free speech. There could be some that are harmless and even amusing but there are those that could be much worse. Context matters as does impact. As the author says in the final scene of the movie in the press conference - all opinions are not equal.
Comments