In Australia, defending against SLAPPs [Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, a term coined by George Pring and Penelope Canan in SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996)] has to operate differently than in the US, because Australia has no bill of rights and no explicit constitutional protection for free speech or for petitioning the government. Furthermore, defamation laws in Australia are much tougher than in the US, in the sense that it is harder for defendants to prove their case. Therefore, in Australia it is more common for politically aware SLAPP defendants to use publicity and campaigning to increase the reputation costs to plaintiffs.
– Vaccination Panic in Australia (2018), p. 105
Little of SAVN’s [Stop the Australian Vaccination Network; since 2014 Stop the Australian (Anti)Vaccination Network] activity in making complaints about media coverage is on the public record. Knowledge about SAVN’s media campaigning mainly comes from comment on SAVN’s Facebook page. However, the basic technique is well known from a number of instances involving topics other than vaccination. For example, Maryanne Demasi, a science journalist, prepared a story about the health effects of microwave radiation that ran in 2016 on the ABC weekly television programme Catalyst. There was a storm of protest about the story, some even before it ran. This protest and complaints about previous stories were probably factors in the ABC closing down the regular Catalyst programme and its entire team.
Attacks on journalists have a powerful demonstration effect: they serve as a warning to other journalists to avoid a similar treatment, thus encouraging self-censorship. In principle, the mass media subscribe to an ethos of fearless reporting and therefore shouldn’t succumb to a partisan campaign designed to suppress certain points of view. In practice, mass media are often quite sensitive to audience response, especially the response of powerful groups. When there is a storm of protest and no countervailing pressure from the other side, the easiest option is to acquiesce.
– Ibid., p. 175
SAVN, throughout the years of its existence, has itself remained remarkably [quite unlike AVN, Australian Vaccination Network; since 2014, when it was forced to rename, – Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network] free of mass media scrutiny. SAVN spokespeople are sometimes quoted and reference is sometimes made to SAVN efforts, but no journalist has examined SAVN in any depth. There are several possible explanations. One is that most journalists support vaccination and do not want to question pro-vaccination campaigners or their techniques. Another is that any critical scrutiny of SAVN would probably be met by the usual SAVN technique of a barrage of complaints, so it would require considerable courage for any journalist, editor and publisher to publish a critique.
Academic journals seem to more open to publishing critiques of SAVN’s tactics, especially journals with no stake in vaccination orthodoxy. That has been my experience with most editors of and referees for social science journals.
– Ibid., p. 178
For screenings of Vaxxed, AVN organisers did not announce the presence of any international speakers, instead saying they would appear via Skype. But, as it turned out, they were in Australia and available in person for after-screening question-and-answer sessions. The AVN thus anticipated and avoided SAVN pressure to deny visas for the international speakers.
As indicated in the quote above from the notice about the screenings, the events brought together like-minded individuals in circumstances that were made more dramatic and bonding due to the secrecy. Studies of persuasion show that scarcity makes things more attractive [Robert B. Cialdini, Influence: How and Why People Agree to Things (New York: Morrow, 1984).]. SAVN’s prior attempts at censorship may have enabled the AVN to make the Vaxxed tour an experience far more influential for participants than it would have been otherwise.
One of the visiting speakers accompanying the Vaxxed tour was Polly Tommey. On leaving Australia, Tommey was informed that she was banned from entering the country for three years because of the danger caused by her views about vaccination […].
The ban reveals the influence of SAVN-aligned pressure to censor vaccine critics. It is hard to imagine immigration authorities taking any interest in visitors such as Tommey except for campaigning by SAVN and its allies.
The ban is mainly of symbolic significance, showing the Australian government’s commitment to vaccination and intolerance of any questioning of government policy. The ban has limited practical impact because Tommey’s websites and publications are freely available, and she can readily access Australian audiences via Skype.
The potential of using a ban to stimulate greater interest was shown shortly afterwards. Kent Heckenlively announced that he was the “world’s number one anti-vaxxer” and that he was planning a trip to take his message to Australians. His blog, which included a copy of a letter to the prime minister, was obviously satirical […]. Nonetheless, several media outlets treated it as a serious plan and, not long after, the Immigration Minister, Peter Dutton, announced a ban on Heckenlively visiting the country. Heckenlively’s publicity stunt generated more coverage than he could have hoped, inserting his name into the Australian vaccination debate.
The online comments following some of the news stories about the ban on Heckenlively reveal considerable support for censorship of vaccine critics, as well as some support for free speech […]. It seems that few of those backing the government’s ban have any sense of how censorship can be counterproductive.
– Ibid., pp. 201-3
In the Australian vaccination debate, vaccine critics inside the health system are vulnerable to reprisals even by mentioning their views in forums where Reasonable Hank or others like him can record them. These insider critics are not whistleblowers in the usual sense, but are in a situation similar to that of whistleblowers. To be more effective, such insiders might be better to keep their opinions to themselves while on the job or under their own names on social media, instead confidentially offering information and insights to citizen critics. The citizen critics, such as public figures in the AVN, are less vulnerable to reprisals and can speak out in a more informed and credible way when they have access to insider information.
[…]
To some extent, this sort of process has been occurring for years. Members of the AVN have been contacted by quite a number of health workers giving their personal observations. As SAVN has increasingly stigmatised criticism of vaccination, insiders are at greater risk when voicing concerns.
– Ibid., pp. 222-3
See also B. Martin on resistance in public scientific conroversy.
In Australia, some media commentators have applied the derogative label “nanny state” to laws they see as curtailing individual freedoms, for example laws against racial vilification that could undermine free speech. But the same commentators never refer to laws providing pressure to vaccinate as manifestations of a nanny-state mentality.
– Ibid., p. 268
SAVNers, however, almost never meet vaccine critics face to face. SAVNers conduct almost all their operations online: Facebook comments, blogs, complaints to government agencies, complaints to media. They refuse to engage in public debates with vaccine critics. The lack of face-to-face contact makes it easier to dehumanise the critics, to see them as one-dimensional enemies. It enables what is called the “online disinhibition effect” […]: face-to-face inhibitions against abusive behaviours are removed in online engagements. Basically, when you can see and hear another person interacting with you, this makes them seem human and discourages antisocial behaviour. Online, interaction lacks facial expressions, tone of voice and other signals that can trigger empathy and mutual recognition. This helps to explain the proliferation of online hate against women, minorities and others. In the next section, I expand on this connection.
– Ibid., p. 273
Various pro-vaccination groups in the Australian debate — medical profession leaders, health department spokespeople, doctors, scientists, journalists, politicians and members of the public, as well as SAVN — participate in efforts to classify any form of vaccine criticism as both unscientific and also unacceptable more generally. This is boundary-work as an everyday activity, occurring in public announcements, advertisements, media stories, personal conversations and other venues. The general thrust of this boundary-work is to stigmatise vaccine criticism as uninformed, ignorant and dangerous. The result is that some parents who are opposed to vaccination are afraid to let others know about their views, for fear of alienating friends or even jeopardising their jobs. In quite a few circles, expressing reservations about vaccination marks a person as irrational.
This pro-vaccination boundary-work has been quite successful, but some individuals and groups resist. The AVN and other vaccine-sceptical groups and individuals present information and viewpoints in various forums. Some individuals are unafraid to defend their views, and may become articulate in doing so on a regular basis.
Pro-vaccination boundary-work preceded the formation of SAVN. What SAVN brought to the issue was the use of more extreme methods based around denigration, harassment and censorship. SAVN’s approach has rubbed off on some other players, notably some journalists and politicians, so that personal abuse and censorship have been normalised. It is worth noting that only a few doctors and scientists have joined in or adopted SAVN-style methods. Some supporters of vaccination see SAVN has performing a valuable function; others see SAVN as going too far and being counterproductive. But few become directly involved themselves.
[…]
Within Australia, few individuals in the vaccination debate could be called dissident experts, namely individuals with credentials or publications who are in some way critical of the dominant pro-vaccination position. Viera Scheibner, an earth scientist, became a prominent critic of vaccination and played an important role in encouraging others to speak out [Viera Scheibner, Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research Shows that Vaccines Represent a Medical Assault on the Immune System (Blackheath, NSW: Viera Scheibner, 1993)]. However, she has not been active in recent years.
The best example of the way SAVN responds to dissident experts is Judy Wilyman, who was my PhD student. With a background teaching science in high school, Judy returned to university to do a masters degree and then a PhD, focusing on vaccination. Because she was outspoken about vaccination, she became a target of SAVN’s. After she obtained her PhD, there was an extraordinary campaign to discredit her and her thesis, and as well me and the University of Wollongong. This campaign is documented elsewhere [“Brian Martin: publications on scientific and technological controversies,” section on Judy Wilyman thesis, http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/controversy.html#Wilyman]. I mention it here to illustrate how SAVN and other pro-vaccination campaigners mount an attack on any critic who has some relevant credentials.
The campaign against Judy served several functions. Most obviously, it was designed to discredit Judy and her research. It also provided a warning to universities about the risks to their reputation should they enrol students critical of vaccination, a warning also relevant to potential research students and their supervisors. It also established the terrain on which the work of critics would be addressed. Rather than engage in a scholarly exchange about the issues raised in Judy’s thesis, SAVNers and their allies mounted an attack in the mass and social media, thus avoiding the possibility of acknowledging that there might be evidence, arguments and perspectives worthy of discussion.
The process of boundary-work in the Australian vaccination debate thus involves several components. The usual pro-vaccination boundary-work is carried out by figures and organisations with the greatest credibility, including government health departments, the Australian Medical Association, and leading doctors and scientists, augmented by the commitment of numerous doctors, nurses and other health professionals. The result of routine endorsement of vaccination was that vaccine critics had little impact on vaccination policy and little credibility for the majority of the population.
The formation of SAVN in 2009 added a dimension to this usual boundary-work. SAVN sought not just to reduce the credibility of vaccine critics but to stigmatise and silence the very expression of vaccine criticism. SAVN’s variety of boundary-work aimed to classify vaccine criticism as outside of science, as outside the bounds of preventive health and as outside of acceptable public speech.
– Ibid., pp. 289-92
See also B. Martin on ‘boundary-work’.
In some states, there is related legislation called No Jab No Play, requiring that children be fully vaccinated or on a catch-up programme in order to attend child care [The actual policies are more diverse and complex than outlined here. For practical guidance, see National Centre for Immunisation Research & Surveillance, “No Jab No Play, No Jab No Pay policies,” http://www.ncirs.edu.au/consumer-resources/no-jab-no-play-no-jab-no-pay-policies/]. No Jab No Pay and No Jab No Play can be called coercive because they involve financial penalties or service denial.
In Australia, children who are HIV positive or hepatitis B positive can attend school. This leads to the strange situation in which discrimination is possible against a child who is healthy but has not received hep B vaccination but not against a child who actually has hepatitis B.
In some occupations, notably in health and the military, there are requirements or expectations for being vaccinated against particular diseases. So far, there have been no requirements that others who work with children, such as teachers, be fully vaccinated. Nor are parents and other relatives required to be vaccinated.
– Ibid., pp. 344-5