Not more than had existed before. You made it sound like CU somehow brought on the trend, that’s all.
Yes, that’s my point.
(But I’ll bet you could score some drugs at this advocacy group.)
You seem to be saying that this sort of activity would be regulated.
You mean the example in the OP would be regulated in the US?
I don’t know. I don’t know enough about this group. I doubt it - it sounds like an advocacy group, not a group giving out medical advice.
I’m just saying it seems to be the concern in Australia. But it may not end up being regulated there either.
No, I’m saying it wouldn’t be regulated in the US. By bringing up the distinction between “medical advice” and “public policy”, you seemed to be implying that it would.
…yeah: sure. You go on believing what you want to believe.
I don’t know if it would. It depends on the details of what this group is doing.
I think the U.S. might view this group as doing advocacy, while in Australia someone seems to think it’s practicing medicine.
And that’s a laughable “argument.”
…nah, it isn’t. I’ll just keep sitting here enjoying my free and open speech and laughing at your assertion that what I said is laughable.
“Most of the rest of the world also value free and open speech and are reluctant to have the government censor it.”
Still laughing, specifically at the “most” part.
You could say that about less than half of the world.
…as I said: keep believing what you want to believe and keep laughing till the cows come home. Won’t make you right. Now: as you seem to be one of those posters that have to have the last word I’m sure you won’t disappoint me by responding.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I do notice, Banquet Bear, that in Post #19 you said, "Australia doesn’t share your constitution and neither does the rest of the world: and the Australian government has the right to decide whether or not an organization can be registered or not. I’m not seeing the issue here. " Then, in Post #26, you switched to "Strawman. Most of the rest of the world also value free and open speech and are reluctant to have the government censor it. " Pick one. Bear in mind the AVN is isn’t selling anything. It’s an advocacy group.
ETA: And, yes, full of woo.
…well Australia doesn’t share the US constitution, and it does have free and open speech. The Australian government does have the right to decide whether or not an organization can be an association or not.
Jackmannii tried to claim that this instance was a government trying to regulate the market of ideas, and that this “Maybe this relates to the American perspective on valuing free and open speech along with extreme reluctance to have government censors limit it.” I stated this was a strawman. The AVN not selling anything is not related to its status as an incorporated association or the involvement of the NSW Fair Trading.
What is your confusion again?
Or “Truthiness”?
That’s kind of the point. If they were engaged in commercial speech, it would be less protected under US law, not more. The free and open speech Jackmanni refers to is the marketplace of ideas, not the literal marketplace.
I was just reminded by this thread of laws in NY and Baltimore (off the top of my head) requiring “crisis pregnancy centers” to be forthcoming about not providing abortions or information about abortion.
I’m pretty sure anyone following the thread gets the point.
…are you saying you agree with what I said, or are you saying something else?
This thread is becoming unbearable.
I feel your post is misleading.