Lucrius

Violation of Free Speech

5 posts in this topic

Full Story

Four of the five largest U.S. tobacco companies sued the federal government Tuesday, saying the warnings violate their free speech rights.

"Never before in the United States have producers of a lawful product been required to use their own packaging and advertising to convey an emotionally-charged government message urging adult consumers to shun their products," the companies wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Full Story

Four of the five largest U.S. tobacco companies sued the federal government Tuesday, saying the warnings violate their free speech rights.

"Never before in the United States have producers of a lawful product been required to use their own packaging and advertising to convey an emotionally-charged government message urging adult consumers to shun their products," the companies wrote in the lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington.

Unfortunately this idiocy does not violate the First Amendment and it does fall under regulating Interstate Commerce. Which leads one to the conclusion that there is a hole in our constitution. Where is Judge Narrigansett when we need him?

ראובן

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long ago the Supreme Cort ruled that the First Amendment doesn't apply to "commercial speech." The Court also decided that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude."

We cannot defend the Constitution without explicitly defending the epistemological and moral foundation on which it rests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Long ago the Supreme Cort ruled that the First Amendment doesn't apply to "commercial speech." The Court also decided that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude."

We cannot defend the Constitution without explicitly defending the epistemological and moral foundation on which it rests.

This is the great thing about law. The Supreme Court can interpret the constitution any way that it wishes. The court has the power to redefine the First Amendment to include commercial speech. The court has changed its mind time and time again. At one point is said that separate but equal was constitutional and then it changed its mind. All that I am saying is that I think the court should protect these tobacco companies. The government is legislating morality on someone else's dollar and that is not justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites