So far, it doesn’t look like it will be.
It should be pretty simple. I mean, if it truly isn’t actual or factual, show how it’s wrong in any particular whatsoever. Hell, even “there are no cancers that are that particular shade of brown!” would be better than the claim that, well, pictures that are actual and factual have more of an impact than words, so let’s just say that they’re no longer actual and factual and call it a day.
For those purporting to be disturbed by the requirement to add images like this on a cigarette pack - I’m still not seeing how that’s a First Amendment issue. If you makes you happier, I’m on board with adding another photo simply showing a leathery, wrinkly, prematurely aged smoker with yellow teeth (like the idea floated during the days when TV tobacco ads were still permitted* of having a PSA showing a suitably unattractive New York cabbie smoking, flashing his stained teeth and saying “By me, it’s Camels.”).
Tu quoque remains a fallacious debate tactic and irrelevant to the current discussion. I would note however that the first-linked photo of Obama does not make him look crazy, merely somewhat ticked off.
*another horrific First Amendment violation in the eyes of those who consider ads on a par with seeking redress from the government.
As the adage goes: If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, try to change the subject to partisan politics.
I don’t believe you understand what “tu quoque” means.
The example of Bachman’s picture (and of Obama’s picture) was offered to show that a picture may be factual and still convey an unfair impression. It was offered to rebut the claim that pictures are automatically factual and accurate. It has not the slightest tu quoque about it.
A tu quoque fallacy is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy. It occurs when the rhetor accuses his opponent of engaging in the same conduct that the opponent is arguing is done by the rhetor.
The subject is still not what constitutes a tu quoque fallacy, or Michelle Bachman, or men having sex in public restrooms, or Barack Obama.
The subject is how you claim that a picture of disease caused by smoking is no longer actual or factual. You tried to switch to talking about “impact” rather than its status as actual and factual, and now you are bringing up whether or not it is conveying an “unfair” impression.
Your claim was that a picture of a condition caused by smoking is, in some way, either not actual or factual, but that words describing that condition are. If you have to switch the discussion to Michelle Bachman, it’s a very good indicator that you can’t support your claim that the actual cigarette warning pictures are at all inaccurate or counterfatual. Can you finally address how a picture of an actual result of actually smoking actual cigarettes is not actual or factual?
Give proof or retract. Show how the intended pictures are in the least particular not accurate and/or are not factual.
I did. I gave two pictures of the same person. Those pictures conveyed very different pieces of information.
Yet again, this is not a discussion about Michelle Bachman or Barack Obama. This is a discussion about your claim that the pictures relating to cigarette smoking are not actual or factual.
At the risk of pointing out the blazingly obvious, even “convey different pieces of information” does not mean that photographs of cigarette smoking’s consequences are no longer accurate or factual.
“Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy.” conveys different information than “Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health” conveys different information than “Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight” conveys different information than “Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide.” They all have the potential to cause different and varied degrees of emotional impact, depending on multiple factors.
None of them are at all inaccurate or counterfactual.
Yet again, give proof or retract, you have done neither.
Show how the images of actual, factual conditions caused by smoking actual, factual cigarettes are in any sense no longer actual or factual. If required, I linked the definitions of “actual” and 'fact" above. It should be fairly trivial to show how the photos do not cleave to actuality or factuality in the least particular, assuming that your point has merit.
Only because of the context surrounding their usage.
How will the pictures on the cigarette labels convey different messages? Are you saying that some people will see the diseased lung and think “wow, that’s awesome! I gotta have that!” while some people will see it and say “wow, that’s disgusting! I don’t want that!” ?
Can you give examples of the “very different pieces of information” that you think the new labels will impart to people?
My claim is that the pictures to be used are not accurate AND factual in the same sense the current text is accurate and factual.
No, even devoid of any context, the two pictures I showed of Barack Obama, although clearly of the same person, conveyed very different impressions of him.
If you took a focus group and asked them to write down their impressions of the man, showing a random half of the group picture A and a random half picture B, the two groups would produce a very different set of adjectives.
But what different views of lung cancer could be expressed by different photos? It’s not like there are any less disgusting ones out there, or that they are having to go out of their way to find lung cancer pictures that look less fun. If the FDA told the cigarette companies that they had to show a picture of a cancerous lung, but it could be any legitimate picture they wanted, would that be constitutionally sound? Or are your arguing that pictures inherently contain extra-factual implications?
Yes, we understand that’s your claim.
Yet you have not attempted to provide support for that claim nor have you retracted it. Yet again, show how the photos are inaccurate or non-factual.
Snowboarder: Well, technically, if nothing else, “smoking causes lung cancer” and “smoking causes [insert picture of lung cancer]” have different information contents as one is just the general word and the other provides a picture so it lets you know the color, texture, shape, etc… that cancer can take. But that’s pretty much just a rabbit trail and should be avoided as the partisan politics non sequitor should be. Hell, “smoking causes lung cancer” and “smoking contains carbon monoxide” also both have different information contents, but that doesn’t make one of them more or less accurate or factual than the other.
Neither the picture of lung cancer, nor the word “lung cancer”, despite differing information contents, are inaccurate or counterfactual. Which, of course, is Bricker’s claim about the photos, and it’s a claim that remains unsupported and unretracted. It should be trivially easy for him to attempt to support it, as well. “It’s not accurate because this particular detail is wrong. It’s not factual because it is erroneous since this detail was false. It’s…”
That we can not get an actual analysis of the pictures, and instead get a discussion of Michelle Bachman’s photos suggests that the evidence for the pictures being inaccurate or counterfactual is nonexistent, else it would have been provided by now. Certainly most people, if they wanted to show how something was not accurate or not a fact, could attempt to show why that was the case with a bare minimum of effort.
Hell, I’ll even spot Bricker a bit of devil’s advocating on my part to get his argument started: “The picture of the premature baby is rotoscoped, therefore the colors it uses are not totally accurate. It must be changed to a photograph.”
Please answer the question I asked at the end of my last post, Bricker. Here it is again:
So far you haven’t backed up that claim at all.
I linked the definitions, maybe I should quote them.
[
](ACCURATE Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster)
[
](FACT Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster)
No glimmer of a challenge has been made as to the photos’ accuracy or factuality.
I think this is right.
In this instance we no doubt have “compelled speech.” The question is whether this compelled speech is violative of the 1st Amendment Free Speech Clause?
I imagine the government’s argument will progress in the following manner. First, the government will most certainly want a level of scrutiny other than strict scrutiny. To advocate for either ratoinal basis reivew or intermediate level of scrutiny, they’d probably make the following argument. Selling a product on the market, to consumers, is a commercial transation, a commercial setting. In commercial contexts the Court has held speech receives less protection, not strict scrutiny but rational basis or intermediate scrutiny. (Cases cited in prior posts). So, the compelled speech here is speech occurring in regards to a product held out for sale to the public, to be purchased by the public. As a result, the government’s conduct should be reviewed under a rational basis review or intermediate levelof scrutiny.
I think, based on the caselaw, the above reasoning is probably a winning argument before the U.S. Supreme Court. I think the Court will observe they are discussing speech compulsion within the context of a commercial transaction, and as a result, strict scrutiny is applicable.
The legitimate end or important government interest, rational basis/intermediate scrutiny, will be to inform the public about the product. The public is not in a position to know or acquire knowledge about the product they are purchasing, as this is information almost exclusively within the company or entity making the product. Yet, consumers making informed purchases is an important value, especially when discussing products for human consumption.
Of course, labels disclosing what is in a product, and the possible health consequences, or reasonably certain health consequences for consuming the product, is rationally and substantially related to this government interest.
Labels which are false, or misleading, are not permissible under the 1st Amendment. The Court has held false statements, false statements of fact, have no societal value, or little societal value, and therefore, receive no constitutional protection, or minimal protection in specific contexts, under the 1st Amendment. I can’t imagine the government can compel speech which generally does not receive protection.
Yes. The bald guy with the beard, wearing an “I Quit” t-shirt, coneys no information at all. The cartoon baby in what appears to be a neonatal care unit is drawn to exaggerate the face, which appears to be in some sort of acute pain. The sobbing African-American woman conveys no “accurate” or “factual” information at all.
Then obviously it woudl not convey false or non-accurate information. But of course it conveys information that is both accurate and factual. It has the traditional warning (that you have stated is perfectly acceptable) that quitting smoking greatly reduces risks to one’s health, plus showing a person who has quit smoking. That is both accurate and factual. Surely there is no need to cite/quote the definition of “information” as well, since you’re not going to attempt to dispute what “information” means and will instead retract your error?
The picture of the baby, by the way, is almost certainly not drawn, it’s rotoscoped. That’s most likely real photo that they’ve simply colored.
I have already cited, and now just quoted the definitions of both the word “actual” and “fact”. You are engaging in the same rote denial whereby you simply stated that pictoral warnings are inaccurate and counterfactual in the same way that written warnings are not. :rolleyes:
Before playing whack-a-mole and trying to guess what your objection, why don’t you state your objection to the picture and attempt to prove how the information it conveys is neither accurate nor factual. Do you contend that sadness is neither an accurate or factual reaction to finding out that you or one of your loved ones is going to die of a fatal disease? I doubt that your argument is reduced to that level, but as you’ve simply offered a pat denial, it’s difficult to tell what, if any, reasoning it’s based upon.
You’ve also only noted three pictures. Does that mean that you would find the rest of the pictures perfectly acceptable, and your only real quibble is over which pictures we place on tobacco packs?
So I take it the rest of them you have no objection to?
And I note that you don’t say what the very different types of information people will take from the pictures, you just say that they don’t convey any factual information at all.
I’m not sure what you think is objectionable about a picture of a crying or yawning baby. Do you think babies don’t cry or yawn?