# Do the new tobacco warnings violate 1st Amendment rights? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 17, 2011, 6:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003 "2011-08-17T06:58:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/41 "2011-08-17T18:32:58Z")
> [@thatguyjeff](#): > > When talking about labeling of any product, consider what is factual and what is not necessarily fact. Yes, let’s do that, because your post is filled with things that fall in to the category of “not necessarily fact”. > [@thatguyjeff](#): > > Food, for example, is required to carry certain factual information regarding its content and nutritional value - so the consumer can know exactly what it is purchasing. > > This is not true with tobacco. The Gov’t/FDA is trying (and already has, to some degree) to replace factual consumer information with information/images that are vague and not necessarily factual. Not true, unless you want to argue that not every single smoker’s lungs will look exactly like the picture that will be on labels. > [@thatguyjeff](#): > > The 2009’s Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act already has removed information from cigarette packing and advertising in that the tobacco co.s are no longer allowed to use terms like “lights.” Not true. The new regulations simply say that the FDA must approve the use of such terms in cigarette labeling, so as to protect consumers; tobacco companies may no longer give the false impression that they produce a product that is “less harmful” than another without there being a basis in fact for such. > [@thatguyjeff](#): > > The logic being it implies one type of cig is safer than another. The result is that the smoker no longer has any idea what they are purchasing. The consumer never had any idea what they were purchasing. Until this act passed, cigarette companies did not have to divulge what was in any of their products. Now, they must reveal all product ingredients to the FDA. > [@thatguyjeff](#): > > Yes, it’s a cigarette. And the gov’t stance is that all cigs are the same. But that is not true to the consumer. Different blends/formulations have differing tar and nicotine amounts - but there is no way for the consumer to know this from that. Not true, as I just showed above. > [@thatguyjeff](#): > > This is akin to forbidding Coca-Cola from labeling diet products - because soda is unhealthy regardless of whether there is real sugar in it or not - and the consumer has no idea which type of cola contains sugar and which contains a sugar substitute. Cite for this? What study are you referring to that shows that all soda, both those containing sugar and those containing sugar substitutes, is harmful? > [@thatguyjeff](#): > > How does this protect the consumer? Well because then everyone will know that no brand/type/formulation of soda is any more or less healthy than any other. Yeah, big help. Again, cite please. > [@thatguyjeff](#): > > Warning labels on cigs currently indicate factual information - this product MAY cause cancer, or have other effects, etc. There’s no guarantee that a smoker will suffer any ill effects. Graphic images are implications at best and are not necessarily factual. And that’s different how than the old [text warning](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#United_States_of_America): “Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.” ? > [@thatguyjeff](#): > > This could set a very dangerous precedent because it could lead to any/all consumer packing information to no longer be factual and would be subject to the whims of the gov’t. I don’t think you’ve at all demonstrated that the new graphic warnings aren’t factual in nature. You’re “slippery slope” argument is also fail. > [@thatguyjeff](#): > > This type of legislation is not good for anyone. You’re entitled to your own opinion, of course, but I don’t think you’ve shown anything to back it up as having a factual basis. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/42 "2011-08-17T18:37:08Z")
FinnAgain and NotreDame05: I think your dispute arises from the fact that you’re arguing different things, and I suspect it’s a lawyerese problem. NotreDame05’s point is correct: we can’t analyze this question by merely pointing out the Commerce Clause. FinnAgain didn’t mean to say that we could, even though he did. What he intended to say was that we could regulate warning labels because we’ve been doing it forever. He did not intend to say that we can regulate labels solely because of the Commerce Clause. I think. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/43 "2011-08-17T18:37:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Can the government, in an effort to fight childhood obesity, require that Paula Deen’s new book “Delicious Meals for Kids,” be sold only in a plain brown wrapper bearing the warning, “Eating These Recipies Risks Becoming This,” together with that same obese kid image? > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Can the government, in an effort to inform consumers of the danger of a product, require that Phillip Morris’ new flavor “Delicious Menthol Lights,” be sold only in packets that bear the warning, " SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy?" > > Gotchaya! round of Lawyerball in progress Does Lawyerball have innings? > [@Bricker](#): > > FinnAgain didn’t mean to say that we could, even though he did. What he intended to say was that we could regulate warning labels because we’ve been doing it forever. He did not intend to say that we can regulate labels solely because of the Commerce Clause. :rolleyes: Not only did I not just ‘intend’ to say that, and not only did I not just say it was due to the ICC despite your claim that I did, but I just pointed out that even in the post of mine which was aggressively cherrypicked for a misleading quote, I very clearly and unambiguously brought up the issue of half a century of precedent. What I “intended” to say also included numerous other facts, which were not only noticed at first by Notre before he somehow failed to notice them, but which he agreed and in some cases, cited to prove I was correct. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/44 "2011-08-17T18:38:35Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Further, there are plenty of cases where the Federal Government, for one reason or another, forces certain products to bear certain warnings or information–primarily health and nutrition information. These pictures seem to me to be of the same kind as Drug Facts or Nutrition Facts labeling. The pictures don’t strike me the same at all. Labels for food and drugs exist so that consumers can make an informed decision about what they put into their bodies. I can look at the back of that frozen pizza container and figure out that it has 1,600 calories, two days worth of salt and 1/3rd of my daily fiber requirement. I don’t smoke, but according to Wikipedia “SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy” has been used on cigarette labels since 1985. It serves the same function as the information found on our food in that it allows me to make an informed decision about smoking. Adding pictures on tobacco products isn’t about letting people make informed decisions. It’s about grossing them out so they avoid tobacco altogether. It’s vindictive, not informative. As others have pointed out, why don’t we put pictures on all the products we sell? Tens of thousands of people die each year from alcohol related automobile accidents and diseases. I want to see a photo of a twisted wreck with a mangled body on ever bottle of Jack Daniels. I want to see a photo of a fatty heart on every bag from Wendy’s. How about photos of fingerless hands on firework packages? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/45 "2011-08-17T18:49:11Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I’d be very interested in a cite of any kind that extended that sort of jurisprudence to warning labels, MSDS warnings, those codes on the sides of chemical trucks, or basically anything where there exists a specific risk involving the health and safety of the population in general. This isn’t my area of law at all, but a brief look suggests to me that most cases seem to accept a difference between compelled factual speech (labels, etc) and compelled speech that presents a particular point of view. Here’s a good summary: > [@](#): > > Commercial disclosure requirements are treated differently from restrictions on commercial speech because mandated disclosure of accurate, factual, commercial information does not offend the core First Amendment values of promoting efficient exchange of information or protecting individual liberty interests. Such disclosure furthers, rather than hinders, the First Amendment goal of the discovery of truth and contributes to the efficiency of the “marketplace of ideas.” Protection of the robust and free flow of accurate information is the principal First Amendment justification for protecting commercial speech, and requiring disclosure of truthful information promotes that goal. In such a case, then, less exacting scrutiny is required than where truthful, nonmisleading commercial speech is restricted. > . > . > . > Additionally, the individual liberty interests guarded by the First Amendment, which may be impaired when personal or political speech is mandated by the state . . . are not ordinarily implicated by compelled commercial disclosure. . . . Required disclosure of accurate, factual commercial information presents little risk that the state is forcing speakers to adopt disagreeable state-sanctioned positions, suppressing dissent, confounding the speaker’s attempts to participate in self-governance, or interfering with an individual’s right to define and express his or her own personality. National Electrical Manufacturers Association v. Sorrell, 272 F. 3d 104 (2nd Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted). ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/46 "2011-08-17T18:52:38Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Doesn’t free speech cover talking about cigarettes? The question then is “does the government have the right of free speech”. I do not see how the government warning on cigarettes infringes on tobacco companies right of speech. They can say whatever they want. They just don’t have an honest rebuttal to the warnings. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/47 "2011-08-17T18:52:47Z")
**Odesio** , your response seems to be responding to something different than what I’m saying: I don’t think they’re unconstitutional. I also don’t think they’re a good idea. That said, > [@Odesio](#): > > As others have pointed out, why don’t we put pictures on all the products we sell? Tens of thousands of people die each year from alcohol related automobile accidents and diseases. I want to see a photo of a twisted wreck with a mangled body on ever bottle of Jack Daniels. I think my assertion that I don’t think the pictures would help is best summed up by the fact I’d drink EVEN MORE Jack Daniels if it had a twisted car crash photo on the bottle. > [@Bricker](#): > > This isn’t my area of law at all, but a brief look suggests to me that most cases seem to accept a difference between compelled factual speech (labels, etc) and compelled speech that presents a particular point of view. So precedent that exists would seem to hinge primarily on how much the pictures are “factual” compared to “presenting a particular point”, yes? Or am I misunderstanding you? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/48 "2011-08-17T18:59:53Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Does Lawyerball have innings? > > :rolleyes: > > Not only did I not just ‘intend’ to say that, and not only did I not just say it was due to the ICC despite your claim that I did, but I just pointed out that even in the post of mine which was aggressively cherrypicked for a misleading quote, I very clearly and unambiguously brought up the issue of half a century of precedent. What I “intended” to say also included numerous other facts, which were not only noticed at first by Notre before he somehow failed to notice them, but which he agreed and in some cases, cited to prove I was correct. Here’s yuor post: > [@FinnAgain](#): > > How does that not fall under the interstate commerce clause? You’re free to say whatever you want as per the 1st amendment, but if you sell a product then you can have that product regulated by the federal government. I see no essential difference, in any case, between the Surgeon General’s warning labels and disgusting graphics. Sure, the graphics are grosser, but we’ve already accepted the precedent that the government can and will tell cig companies to put big ol’ notices on their product that they will fucking murder you. > > Seems a rather picayune quibble over degree and not kind. What you said is not correct and complete. Roll your eyes all you like, but that post fails to correctly explain that netiher the Commerce Clause, precedent, or the combination of the Commerce Clause and precedent are sufficient tools to answer the question. The government’s interest must be evaluated, for example – the government can’t regulate a product’s advertising just because it feels like it. The government must assert an interest, and the interest must be legitimate – compelling or rational. These considerations are weighed against the intrusiveness and factuality of the proposed compelled speech. Your post doesn’t hint at any of that. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/49 "2011-08-17T19:01:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > NotreDame05’s point is correct: we can’t analyze this question by merely pointing out the Commerce Clause. > > FinnAgain didn’t mean to say that we could, even though he did. Retraction of your spurious claim yet? Perhaps coupled with an acknowledgement that not only did I not, ever, say that we can “merely point to the CC” but, in fact, [from my very first post in the thread, I pointed out that one of the issues at play was precedent?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14148315&postcount=11) Maybe even an acknowledgement that not only did I do so, clearly and unambiguously but for Notre to claim otherwise weakens his argument significantly, and that for him to deliberately cherrypick my post to exclude my explicit mention of precedent further weakens his argument as a reliable, trustworthy narrative? Maybe even that your repetition of his fiction as fact puts your argument in the same category as his, as even a cursory glance at my actual first post in the thread clearly shows that I mentioned precedent clearly and your snarky “FinnAgain didn’t mean to say that we could, even though he did” is not only counterfactual, but counterproductive to honest discussion? Or, ya know: > [@Bricker](#): > > What he intended to say was that we could regulate warning labels because we’ve been doing it forever. > [@FinnAgain](#): > > How does that not fall under the interstate commerce clause? You’re free to say whatever you want as per the 1st amendment, but if you sell a product then you can have that product regulated by the federal government.\* I see no essential difference, in any case, between the Surgeon General’s warning labels and disgusting graphics. Sure, the graphics are grosser, but **we’ve already accepted the precedent that the government can and will tell cig companies to put big ol’ notices on their product that they will fucking murder you**. > > Seems a rather picayune quibble over degree and not kind\*. And: > [@Bricker](#): > > Can the government, in an effort to fight childhood obesity, require that Paula Deen’s new book “Delicious Meals for Kids,” be sold only in a plain brown wrapper bearing the warning, “Eating These Recipies Risks Becoming This,” together with that same obese kid image? > [@FinnAgain](#): > > Can the government, in an effort to inform consumers of the danger of a product, require that Phillip Morris’ new flavor “Delicious Menthol Lights,” be sold only in packets that bear the warning, " SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy?" > > Gotchaya! round of Lawyerball in progress > [@FinnAgain](#): > > What, if any, have your objections been to half a century of warning labels placed on cigarette packs? > What, if anything, do you see as the substantive difference now that does not boil down to “well… it’s a picture?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/50 "2011-08-17T19:01:26Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > So precedent that exists would seem to hinge primarily on how much the pictures are “factual” compared to “presenting a particular point”, yes? Or am I misunderstanding you? That certainly seems to be a key factor, yes. I’d want to study the issue a bit more before I loudly committed myself to a particular claim (cf. **FinnAgain** ) but that summary seems safe. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/51 "2011-08-17T19:04:08Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > Retraction of your spurious claim yet? Perhaps coupled with an acknowledgement that not only did I not, ever, say that we can “merely point to the CC” but, in fact, [from my very first post in the thread, I pointed out that one of the issues at play was precedent?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14148315&postcount=11) Maybe even an acknowledgement that not only did I do so, clearly and unambiguously but for Notre to claim otherwise weakens his argument significantly, and that for him to deliberately cherrypick my post to exclude my explicit mention of precedent further weakens his argument as a reliable, trustworthy narrative? Maybe even that your repetition of his fiction as fact puts your argument in the same category as his, as even a cursory glance at my actual first post in the thread clearly shows that I mentioned precedent clearly and your snarky “FinnAgain didn’t mean to say that we could, even though he did” is not only counterfactual, but counterproductive to honest discussion? > > Or, ya know: > > And: The picture of the obese kid I used in my hypothetical is a far cry from the clearly factual display of information that is sanctioned now. “Required disclosure of accurate, factual commercial information presents little risk that the state is forcing speakers to adopt disagreeable state-sanctioned positions…” When we leave behind “accurate, factual commercial information” we leave behind current precedent as well. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/52 "2011-08-17T19:13:08Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > **Odesio** , your response seems to be responding to something different than what I’m saying: It seems different because I wasn’t replying to your post. If I was, I would have quoted your post so as to avoid confusion. > [@](#): > > So precedent that exists would seem to hinge primarily on how much the pictures are “factual” compared to “presenting a particular point”, yes? Or am I misunderstanding you? That’s pretty much it. It’s my position that the photos aren’t about informing consumers so much as it’s about grossing them out. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/53 "2011-08-17T19:18:38Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > before I loudly committed myself to a particular claim (cf. **FinnAgain** ) I would suggest that there is more than a little synesthesia occurring when you believe that text has a volume. Just saying. Also interesting that you’re reduced to more snarky bullshit. I “loudly” do something but your, less an intellectually consistent devil’s advocate schtick, that’s just good ol’ fashioned Lawyerball. Eh? By the way, I notice that somehow you managed to reply to a post and accidentally missed[the massive, bolded, underlined, italicized citation proving that not only were you wildly wrong about a very clear post that I made, as my very first post in this thread, but your characterization of this thread is dramatically at odds with what has actually happened](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14149633&postcount=49)… and you somehow totally avoid mentioning those facts let alone actually retracting your errors. You also somehow neglected to mention whether you have or have not opposed the half century of warning labels, or how showing potential consequences of smoking, via pictural representation, is a material difference when compared to using words to do the same thing. [But you have now tried to change the subject with an odd, and incorrect dodge.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14149651&postcount=51) Do you, in fact, now intend to claim that eating food can not, actually, make one gain weight? That pointing out that eating food has the potential consequence of weight gain is not a 'clearly factual display of information"? Perhaps you should return to backing up Notre’s devastating critique of how very wrong I was about the proper care and feeding of rokhs and how to deal with the elephant carcases they discard, rather than addressing the fact that both you and he have wildly mischaracterized my actual argument, and blatantly cherrypicked in order to do it, and then refused to retract your clear and proven errors, thereby casting doubt on the veracity of any other statement or analysis you have made or will make on this topic? So… forklift to get rid of rokh-leavings? Or are you thinking maybe a bulldozer? ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/54 "2011-08-17T19:23:22Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > It seems different because I wasn’t replying to your post. If I was, I would have quoted your post so as to avoid confusion. Heh, you DID quote my post: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14149504&postcount=44](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14149504&postcount=44) ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/55 "2011-08-17T19:24:50Z")
My, but there are some interesting errors in this thread… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/56 "2011-08-17T19:48:09Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I would suggest that there is more than a little synesthesia occurring when you believe that text has a volume. Just saying. Also interesting that you’re reduced to more snarky bullshit. I “loudly” do something but your, less an intellectually consistent devil’s advocate schtick, that’s just good ol’ fashioned Lawyerball. Eh? Yes. If we were to retain, say, the late Sir Laurence Olivier to read and interpret each of our posts, giving him free reign to present them in whatever way he felt best conveyed their tone, yours would be read louder. > [@](#): > > By the way, I notice that somehow you managed to reply to a post and accidentally missed[the massive, bolded, underlined, italicized citation proving that not only were you wildly wrong about a very clear post that I made, as my very first post in this thread, but your characterization of this thread is dramatically at odds with what has actually happened](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14149633&postcount=49)… and you somehow totally avoid mentioning those facts let alone actually retracting your errors. No, I have no errors to retract – at least in this thread. Your initial post was poorly written and failed to lay out the actual factors that support government regulation of labels. Yes, you mentioned both Commerce Clause and precedent – but those factors alone are insufficient, as a moment’s thought should make you realize. If Commerce Clause and precedent alone were sufficient, then at some point in the past, before the precedent was set, we would have Commerce Clause alone - yes? In any event, you utterly failed to grasp the First Amendment analysis that’s at the heart of this discussion. > [@](#): > > You also somehow neglected to mention whether you have or have not opposed the half century of warning labels, or how showing potential consequences of smoking, via pictural representation, is a material difference when compared to using words to do the same thing. Actually, I did speak to that, when I quoted the Second Circuit’s line: “Required disclosure of accurate, factual commercial information presents little risk that the state is forcing speakers to adopt disagreeable state-sanctioned positions…” That’s what separates pictures from words. “Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health.” = Accurate and factual The use of a picture? Not so much. What does the picture show? Is the picture an accurate and factual depiction of what will happen to the smoker, or is it a conjecture about what might happen to the smoker? It’s not your fault that you don’t understand First Amendment law. It is your fault that you aggresively refuse to learn about it. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/57 "2011-08-17T19:57:25Z")
I’m not particularly versed in the law, but certainly text and a photo are substantively different. The phrase “The couple had sex standing up in a men’s room” is different than [a picture of it](http://www.411mania.com/siteimages/pervert_68221.jpg). One can be put on TV and the other can’t. Doesn’t that suggest that the law finds a difference? In any case, I’m pro labels unless it’s decided to be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/58 "2011-08-17T20:01:32Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Heh, you DID quote my post: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14149504&postcount=44](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14149504&postcount=44) That’s actually pretty hilarious and boy do I feel stupid right now. I mean, uh, pay no attention to the man behind the computer. I am the great and powerful Odesio! Tremble before my might! ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/59 "2011-08-17T20:16:14Z")
[Yet again, readers can take note of Bricker’s many curious errors here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14149633&postcount=48) > [@Bricker](#): > > No, I have no errors to retract And this is why nothing you have said or will say in this thread can be taken as accurate. Even though I clearly, explicitly and obviously talked about the precedent of warning labels on cigarettes, you claimed I did not. And you made this erroneous claim with as much snark as you could muster. You claimed that I actually only said that the ICC was at issue, and in order to make that claim not only do you have to ignore virtually every other post I made in this thread, but you have to ignore literally 3/5 of my first post in this thread. You also supported Notre’s cherrypicking of my argument, ignoring the fact that not only did he realize that my argument was not just “the ICC says so”, but he _responded in detail to several of my other arguments that were not “the ICC says so” but then later reverted to that strawman of my argument once it was proven that his own cites supported my claims._ > [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, you mentioned both Commerce Clause and precedent – but those factors alone are insufficient, as a moment’s thought should make you realize. Disingenuous twaddle.[You claimed, and I quote, that I “intended” to say “that we could regulate warning labels because we’ve been doing it forever.”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14149633&postcount=48) I pointed out that, in fact, that’s exactly what I said. All anybody has to do is control-F for “century” and see just what type of an argument you’re making and what it means that you refuse to retract it. Now you’re adding more snarky bullshit and still refusing to admit even that simple error. I’ll note that, despite your fresh bullshit, your original claim was not that I improperly addressed it, but that I did not address precedent at all and that I ever claimed that the ICC alone was sufficient. Both of which are so obviously false that any honest reader knows what to do with your subsequent fiats explaining how little I understand about the issue. > [@Bricker](#): > > In any event, you utterly failed to grasp the First Amendment analysis that’s at the heart of this discussion. > […] > It’s not your fault that you don’t understand First Amendment law. It is your fault that you aggresively refuse to learn about it. As your argument now consists of ad hominem bullshit about synesthesia and a claim that 3/5 of my first post talking about the precedent of warning labels somehow was unclear on the fact that the issue of precedent of warning labels was involved, and you still refuse to retract your nonsense about how I never even mentioned precedent, your new revelation should be treated as if it shares the veracity of your previous claims. And if you are in error, one should, perforce, expect that you will be just as quick to admit it. Of course. Of course. Naturally though, as you’re wrong and playing some rousing Lawyerball from the facade of Non-Loud Disinterested Observer and arguing in the teeth of the facts, your renewed snark just goes to show that not only is your factual and logical argument bankrupt, but you will reduce your argument to this much instead of simply admitting you’re incorrect. Your attempt to move the goalposts from your claim that I didn’t say that precedent was at issue to this new nonsense that I said it but not well enough or not clearly enough or I missed other factors or… Well, it’s pretty clear what the quality of your argument is. > [@Bricker](#): > > Actually, I did speak to that, when I quoted the Second Circuit’s line: “Required disclosure of accurate, factual commercial information presents little risk that the state is forcing speakers to adopt disagreeable state-sanctioned positions…” That’s what separates pictures from words. > > “Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health.” = Accurate and factual > > The use of a picture? Not so much. What does the picture show? Is the picture an accurate and factual depiction of what will happen to the smoker, or is it a conjecture about what might happen to the smoker? Well at least we only have this disingenuous ‘not taking a position Just Asking Questions’ nonsense, and not any “loud” text. Of course, you’re yet again presenting an argument that’s patently false. You did not actually speak to the issue, you’re trying some bullshit handwaving with ‘these aren’t the droids you’re looking for.’ A picture of what might happen to a smoker is just as accurate as the words “SURGEON GENERAL’S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema”. You’re rather obviously playing devil’s advocate here, and you’re equally obviously taking arms against the tide. As if saying “smoking causes lung cancer” is totally factual, but showing a picture of lung cancer caused by smoking is all of a sudden not factual. It’s an obvious rationalization designed so you can snark and avoid admitting your wrong, and I truly doubt you’re fooling anybody at all. Which raises the question as to why you’re even trying to use such disingenuous nonsense. So yet again, going to address let alone retract your errors any time soon? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2011, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003/60 "2011-08-17T20:34:17Z")
**FinnAgain** , enough already. You are being unnecessarily rude and your comments about other posters have little to no basis in reality. I thought **Bricker** ’s summary of the situation (post #41) was accurate, and your last few posts have added a lot of unnecessary vitriol to this thread. Restrain yourself. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-the-new-tobacco-warnings-violate-1st-amendment-rights/593003.md?page=4)