3 ms·

That will certainly not pass the first amendment test.

kachnuv_ocasek 11y ago
Two clicks from the 'First amendment' Wikipedia article led me to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Commercial_speech_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite... So yeah, it might pass.
- lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
  Well, not exactly. Tobacco advertising bans, aside from TV and radio, were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92990&page=1 http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92990&page=1 You can ban it from TV and radio if there's a compelling government interest but even the head medical chied of the ADA says there is no definitive proof that sugar causes diabetes. (See my link above)
  - kachnuv_ocasek 11y ago
    Sure. I'm just saying it's not completely ruled out.
ScottWhigham 11y ago
I'm not sure what the 'first amendment test' is when it comes to corporate advertising but our government already limits how alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and marijuana can be advertised. We also limit what and how things can be advertised to children. So I'm not really sure your sentence is correct.
- lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
  Well if you wanted a ban on advertising sugary cereal to kids, you would have to pass the "Central Hudson" test. You would have to prove a compelling government interest to ban the ads to children. The ADA chief medical scientist has already said there is no conclusive proof that sugary food causes diabetes. Also I don't know if you've seen any kids cereal commercials recently, but they're not making deceptive claims (like "eating this cereal will make you healthier"). http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commercial.htm http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commerc...
  - ScottWhigham 11y ago
    We're all just commenting on your vague original comment. If you wanted to add context, that was the time to do it - not later as a defense of your original comment. You've specifically focused on "sugary cereal" in your comment to me - okay, that's fine. But your original comment was in reply to a much broader comment yet you decided to just make a blanket statement.
littletimmy 11y ago
The first amendment shouldn't really apply to corporations. We already limit the advertising of tobacco, for example. Sugar is as harmful.
- lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
  That's not true. There is a scientific consensus on cigarettes and lung cancer. There is certainly no scientific consensus on sugar and diabetes/cancer. If the first amendment should apply to corporations, should the New York Times be restricted on what articles it can print? What about the movie documentaries you see on Netflix?
- ScottWhigham 11y ago
  Sugar is as harmful I think that sort of hyperbole isn't helping any arguments against sugar. No need to ratchet up the rhetoric - this is already a hot topic. Sugar is bad, yes, but if it was thought to be "as harmful" as tobacco it would have warning labels and you'd have to be a certain age to use it.
- rhino369 11y ago
  >The first amendment shouldn't really apply to corporations. Should the feds be able to shut down Hackernews? It's a corporation. NY Times? It's a corporation. The distinction you want to make is commercial speech should be able to be regulated. And it is. False advertising is illegal but lying about politics is a first amendment right. Also, sugar isn't harmful in moderation. Plus the science of diet is hilariously poorly understood. 15 years ago people would have been trying to ban fatty food. Now all the sudden fat is good? And that goes triple for popular diet advice. It's all fads. We still can't figure out a diet that works for whole population long term.

Two clicks from the 'First amendment' Wikipedia article led me to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States#Commercial_speech_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite... So yeah, it might pass.

lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
Well, not exactly. Tobacco advertising bans, aside from TV and radio, were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92990&page=1 http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92990&page=1 You can ban it from TV and radio if there's a compelling government interest but even the head medical chied of the ADA says there is no definitive proof that sugar causes diabetes. (See my link above)
- kachnuv_ocasek 11y ago
  Sure. I'm just saying it's not completely ruled out.

ScottWhigham 11y ago

I'm not sure what the 'first amendment test' is when it comes to corporate advertising but our government already limits how alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and marijuana can be advertised. We also limit what and how things can be advertised to children. So I'm not really sure your sentence is correct.

lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
Well if you wanted a ban on advertising sugary cereal to kids, you would have to pass the "Central Hudson" test. You would have to prove a compelling government interest to ban the ads to children. The ADA chief medical scientist has already said there is no conclusive proof that sugary food causes diabetes. Also I don't know if you've seen any kids cereal commercials recently, but they're not making deceptive claims (like "eating this cereal will make you healthier"). http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commercial.htm http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/commerc...
- ScottWhigham 11y ago
  We're all just commenting on your vague original comment. If you wanted to add context, that was the time to do it - not later as a defense of your original comment. You've specifically focused on "sugary cereal" in your comment to me - okay, that's fine. But your original comment was in reply to a much broader comment yet you decided to just make a blanket statement.

littletimmy 11y ago

The first amendment shouldn't really apply to corporations. We already limit the advertising of tobacco, for example. Sugar is as harmful.

lfjmfkekdk 11y ago
That's not true. There is a scientific consensus on cigarettes and lung cancer. There is certainly no scientific consensus on sugar and diabetes/cancer. If the first amendment should apply to corporations, should the New York Times be restricted on what articles it can print? What about the movie documentaries you see on Netflix?
ScottWhigham 11y ago
Sugar is as harmful I think that sort of hyperbole isn't helping any arguments against sugar. No need to ratchet up the rhetoric - this is already a hot topic. Sugar is bad, yes, but if it was thought to be "as harmful" as tobacco it would have warning labels and you'd have to be a certain age to use it.
rhino369 11y ago
>The first amendment shouldn't really apply to corporations. Should the feds be able to shut down Hackernews? It's a corporation. NY Times? It's a corporation. The distinction you want to make is commercial speech should be able to be regulated. And it is. False advertising is illegal but lying about politics is a first amendment right. Also, sugar isn't harmful in moderation. Plus the science of diet is hilariously poorly understood. 15 years ago people would have been trying to ban fatty food. Now all the sudden fat is good? And that goes triple for popular diet advice. It's all fads. We still can't figure out a diet that works for whole population long term.