Preventing danger? No vax on social media

Abstract

As criminology is also focused on prevention, it begs the question of whether thoughts that could lead to harmful consequences are within its jurisdiction and if they can be restricted as a result. This query is prompted by an analysis of 100 social media posts by individuals who oppose the Covid-19 vaccine. Non-vaccination opinions were categorized based on expressions of freedom, health concern, psudo-scientific opinions, and conspiracy beliefs. Additionally, the views of vaccine proponents who utilized scientific reasoning were examined. The debate centers around the conflict between freedom of thought expression and the potential danger of expressed opinions. Two principles collide: the right to freedom of thought expression protected by the Constitution's Article 21 and the safeguarding of public interests as possible limitations to freedom of speech.