Yes, let’s do that, because your post is filled with things that fall in to the category of “not necessarily fact”.
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.
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.
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.
Not true, as I just showed above.
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?
Again, cite please.
And that’s different how than the old text warning: “Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.” ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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:
National Electrical Manufacturers Association v. Sorrell, 272 F. 3d 104 (2nd Cir. 2001) (internal citations omitted).
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.
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,
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.
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?
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.
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? 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?
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.
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.
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?
But you have now tried to change the subject with an odd, and incorrect dodge. 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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
