7 ms·
re Part I: isn't there precedent for this in, for one example, the warning labels that cigarette makers are required to place on their products? I doubt those c
by ridgeguy 11y ago
re Part I: isn't there precedent for this in, for one example, the warning labels that cigarette makers are required to place on their products? I doubt those companies agreed with the message, but they were forced to add it to their product packaging.
- mdturnerphys 11y agoThey only have to do so if they want to sell cigarettes, which is not a constitutional right.
- occamrazor 11y agoSelling iPhones isn't a constitutional right either.
- lmm 11y agoCongress could make that illegal if they wanted. They could e.g. make it illegal to sell a device that doesn't accept code updates signed with a particular government key. But they can't do it retroactively.
- rhizome 11y agoCongress can do that. Cigarettes are a special case with their own law and everything: https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/statutes/federal-cigarette-labeling-advertising-act-1966 https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/statutes/federal-cigarette-l... Some have opined that the FBI submitted the NYC case when Judge Orenstein was likely to get the case in order for it to be struck down, after which they go to their preferred playground: Congress. In the event Congress passes a law forcing Apple to sign code they don't want to sign, we'll long have been hearing rumbles about Apple moving to Ireland or wherever by then.
- zodiac 11y agoClearly the question then would be, why is the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1966 not unconstitutional, since it "compel a company to convey a message it disagrees with"? (I don't know the answer and couldn't find it through a quick search - just pointing out what ridgeguy probably meant)
- makomk 11y agoBecause that's a form of commercial speech and only has very limited protections under the First Amendment. Same reason that deceptive advertisements aren't protected.
- executesorder66 11y agoThe warning is for the danger smoking has for your health. I'm sure cigarette companies don't believe cigarettes are healthy, or at the very least have no negative effects on your heath. They are just worried that a health warning on all their products would affect their products. Just because they don't want the health warning to be true, doesn't mean they don't believe it is true.
- harryh 11y agoWhat someone believes to be true is not a relevant consideration in first amendment protection. I might believe, for example, that african americans are unreasonably targeted by law enforcement. But, even so, the government cannot compel me to attend a black lives matter protest.
- jameshart 11y agoThe warning is at least clearly attributed to the Surgeon General, not the manufacturer, which goes to the EFF argument. The government could compel Apple to produce an update 'signed by the director of the FBI', but one signed by Apple is a different matter. The fact that an iPhone won't install an update signed by anyone else is a separate problem.