Yes, and your pet dinosaur ate my entire clutch of phoenyx eggs, no matter how stridently you deny it! Naturally, you’re engaging in some rather blatant cherrypicking. Even in the post that you cherrypicked from, you deliberately cut out the fact that we’ve already accepted, for half a century now, that we can indeed put warning labels on cigarette packs. Not only did you accept that as true, you went on to argue in support of my point when you posted the fact that the Central Hudson and Gas verdict directly supported the fact that the government can indeed regulate commercial speech.
Of course, you’ve conveniently neglected to quote all the other things I said, but your massive, deliberate cherrypicking in just that one postshould serve to let readers know what you’re leaving out. And why. Just like it’s clear why you quoted it outside a quote box and outside a linked quote box.
Just like it’s clear why you quoted but still have not addressed what your objections have been, all along, to half a century of warning labels placed on cigarette packs or what your objection is now other than “Hrm… pictures?”
Is that before or after your pixy army invaded my cerberus lair and made off with all their philosopher’s stones?
It’s odd that you’re so wildly mischaracterizing what actually happened, because to remind you, not only did you previously understand that my argument contained more than the pat statement that the ICC is at issue,but you managed to respond to some of my additional points and claimed that the additional points I had made, which at the time you admitted were not simply “the iCC sez it, so there!”, somehow supported your argument. Strangely, when it was shown that you were wrong and all of your arguments actually supported what I’d said all along, not only were they no longer probative but now we had to wait and see and then, lo and behold, my arguments vanished altogether and were replaced with “Teh Uber ICC, also I ride dinosaurs!”
Curiouser and curiouser.
Your confusion here is quite strange. Yet again, when you posted arguments that were in support of my claims, they were in fact, in support. When I claimed that free speech is not absolute when it is in the public sphere, you provided an argument proving that free speech is not absolute in the public sphere. When I claimed that the ICC did in fact correctly apply to advertising (which even the cigarette companies will say that packaging is part and parcel of), you provided a citation showing that the ICC did in fact correctly apply to advertising. When I claimed that the ICC validly allowed congress to regulate advertisement/packaging, you responded that, yes, congress can indeed do that because it’s not “pure” speech.
Then you claimed that despite the fact that you had supported literally every single one of my arguments that you’d set out to debunk, I was still wrong.
I’m shocked. Shocked!
Found any cites yet or can you at least tell us about your history of opposition to 50 years worth of precedent showing that the government can, in fact, place warnings on cigarette packs? Do you, in fact, have any argument more substantive against the current labels than “well… you see… and then… because… and… um… pictures?”
Or would you prefer to misstate my argument again a few times?
Perhaps another round of triumphantly pointing out that you can indeed say that there is a fire in a crowded theater if, yep, there is in fact a fire there?