3 ms·

There's plenty of compelled speech in a commercial context. Just one example: look at your bottle of milk. It probably says "made with milk from cowsnot treated

by fmajid 4y ago

There's plenty of compelled speech in a commercial context. Just one example: look at your bottle of milk. It probably says "made with milk from cowsnot treated with rBST hormone", but the FDA also compels them to say effectively "not that there is anything wrong with rBST".

Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
I’d love to read a qualified and accomplished lawyers take on the pedantic differences between your example and the subject at hand.
devman0 4y ago
There is an argument that compelled factual speech (such as disclosures, warnings, safety, ingredient information, "truth in lending", etc) is different than compelling someone to say something that isn't true.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
> but the FDA also compels them to say effectively "not that there is anything wrong with rBST". Source? Edit, found this. Wonder why this reasoning is not used for false implications in all the other labeling for supplements, vitamins, herbal, and organic food. Even for milk, there is “A2” milk sold next to regular milk implying that A2 is somehow more nutritious, but it is not required to say “A1 milk has not been shown to be any worse than A2”. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1994-02-10/html/94-3214.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1994-02-10/html/94-32... > Because of the presence of natural bST in milk, no milk is ``bST-free,'' and a ``bST-free'' labeling statement would be false. Also, FDA is concerned that the term ``rbST free'' may imply a compositional difference between milk from treated and untreated cows rather than a difference in the way the milk is produced. Instead, the concept would better be formulated as ``from cows not treated with rbST'' or in other similar ways. However, even such a statement, which asserts that rbST has not been used in the production of the subject milk, has the potential to be misunderstood by consumers. Without proper context, such statements could be misleading. Such unqualified statements may imply that milk from untreated cows is safer or of higher quality than milk from treated cows. Such an implication would be false and misleading. >FDA believes such misleading implications could best be avoided by the use of accompanying information that puts the statement in a proper context. Proper context could be achieved in a number of different ways. For example, accompanying the statement ``from cows not treated with rbST'' with the statement that ``No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated cows'' would put the claim in proper context. Proper context could also be achieved by conveying the firm's reasons (other than safety or quality) for choosing not to use milk from cows treated with rbST, as long as the label is truthful and nonmisleading.
- fmajid 4y ago
  Well, rBST is banned in the EU, non on health or safety but on animal welfare grounds, as cow udders are not made for that level of milk production and mechanical milking causes distress and injury (mastitis) to the cows. Also there is a difference between BST (bovine somatotropinnatural) and rBST (r stands for recombinant, the manufacturing process) the synthetic kind. The FDA's "concerns" are transparently based purely on the commercial interests of rBST producers like Monsanto and their customers'.
panarky 4y ago
I was struck by the negativity and fatalism of these comments, because in my memory we've discussed warrant canaries, and rsync's in particular, on HN many times over the years. In my memory the comments used to be more positive about both the effectiveness of canaries and about the sheer cleverness, ingenuity and spirit of fighting back against tyranny. I wondered what happened to the HN hive mind over the years, has it become more deferential to the authoritarian state, more accepting of the erosion of essential freedoms in exchange for ostensible safety, more dismissive of clever hacks? But then I read a thread from 13 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=702247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=702247 While there's a noticeable positive sentiment, many of the skeptical comments of today could have been copied verbatim from July, 2009. So perhaps my memory is faulty.
- TMWNN 4y ago
  >I wondered what happened to the HN hive mind over the years, has it become more deferential to the authoritarian state, more accepting of the erosion of essential freedoms in exchange for ostensible safety, more dismissive of clever hacks? >But then I read a thread from 13 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=702247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=702247 >While there's a noticeable positive sentiment, many of the skeptical comments of today could have been copied verbatim from July, 2009. The difference is that in 2009 and now a Democrat is in the White House, so those who are convinced that "their side" can't do anything wrong are more willing to accept the authoritarian state. Look at the Warrant Canary Wikipedia page. Would Jessamyn West—associated so closely with Metafilter, a site that basically self-destructed because its hivemind became so self-reinforcing as to immediately shun anyone at any variance with it in a way that would make a Maoist struggle session conductor proud[1]—have created her sign for libraries if George W. Bush had not been president at the time? I doubt it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32880651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32880651
- fmajid 4y ago
  Since Snowden we've discovered just how lawless the government is, and what's worse, the spooks also got away scot-free with no consequences whatsoever for wanton violations of the Fourth Amendment. Saying that you shouldn't rely on legally untested warrant canaries as a sure-fire protection is not the same as agreeing with the executive branch's overreach abetted by a supine & craven Congress and a Judicial branch all too inclined to defer to the executive when spurious security justifications are trotted out.

by fmajid 4y ago

Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago

I’d love to read a qualified and accomplished lawyers take on the pedantic differences between your example and the subject at hand.

devman0 4y ago

There is an argument that compelled factual speech (such as disclosures, warnings, safety, ingredient information, "truth in lending", etc) is different than compelling someone to say something that isn't true.

lotsofpulp 4y ago

> but the FDA also compels them to say effectively "not that there is anything wrong with rBST". Source? Edit, found this. Wonder why this reasoning is not used for false implications in all the other labeling for supplements, vitamins, herbal, and organic food. Even for milk, there is “A2” milk sold next to regular milk implying that A2 is somehow more nutritious, but it is not required to say “A1 milk has not been shown to be any worse than A2”. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1994-02-10/html/94-3214.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1994-02-10/html/94-32... > Because of the presence of natural bST in milk, no milk is ``bST-free,'' and a ``bST-free'' labeling statement would be false. Also, FDA is concerned that the term ``rbST free'' may imply a compositional difference between milk from treated and untreated cows rather than a difference in the way the milk is produced. Instead, the concept would better be formulated as ``from cows not treated with rbST'' or in other similar ways. However, even such a statement, which asserts that rbST has not been used in the production of the subject milk, has the potential to be misunderstood by consumers. Without proper context, such statements could be misleading. Such unqualified statements may imply that milk from untreated cows is safer or of higher quality than milk from treated cows. Such an implication would be false and misleading. >FDA believes such misleading implications could best be avoided by the use of accompanying information that puts the statement in a proper context. Proper context could be achieved in a number of different ways. For example, accompanying the statement ``from cows not treated with rbST'' with the statement that ``No significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbST-treated and non-rbST-treated cows'' would put the claim in proper context. Proper context could also be achieved by conveying the firm's reasons (other than safety or quality) for choosing not to use milk from cows treated with rbST, as long as the label is truthful and nonmisleading.

fmajid 4y ago
Well, rBST is banned in the EU, non on health or safety but on animal welfare grounds, as cow udders are not made for that level of milk production and mechanical milking causes distress and injury (mastitis) to the cows. Also there is a difference between BST (bovine somatotropinnatural) and rBST (r stands for recombinant, the manufacturing process) the synthetic kind. The FDA's "concerns" are transparently based purely on the commercial interests of rBST producers like Monsanto and their customers'.

panarky 4y ago

I was struck by the negativity and fatalism of these comments, because in my memory we've discussed warrant canaries, and rsync's in particular, on HN many times over the years. In my memory the comments used to be more positive about both the effectiveness of canaries and about the sheer cleverness, ingenuity and spirit of fighting back against tyranny. I wondered what happened to the HN hive mind over the years, has it become more deferential to the authoritarian state, more accepting of the erosion of essential freedoms in exchange for ostensible safety, more dismissive of clever hacks? But then I read a thread from 13 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=702247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=702247 While there's a noticeable positive sentiment, many of the skeptical comments of today could have been copied verbatim from July, 2009. So perhaps my memory is faulty.

TMWNN 4y ago
>I wondered what happened to the HN hive mind over the years, has it become more deferential to the authoritarian state, more accepting of the erosion of essential freedoms in exchange for ostensible safety, more dismissive of clever hacks? >But then I read a thread from 13 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=702247 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=702247 >While there's a noticeable positive sentiment, many of the skeptical comments of today could have been copied verbatim from July, 2009. The difference is that in 2009 and now a Democrat is in the White House, so those who are convinced that "their side" can't do anything wrong are more willing to accept the authoritarian state. Look at the Warrant Canary Wikipedia page. Would Jessamyn West—associated so closely with Metafilter, a site that basically self-destructed because its hivemind became so self-reinforcing as to immediately shun anyone at any variance with it in a way that would make a Maoist struggle session conductor proud[1]—have created her sign for libraries if George W. Bush had not been president at the time? I doubt it. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32880651 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32880651
fmajid 4y ago
Since Snowden we've discovered just how lawless the government is, and what's worse, the spooks also got away scot-free with no consequences whatsoever for wanton violations of the Fourth Amendment. Saying that you shouldn't rely on legally untested warrant canaries as a sure-fire protection is not the same as agreeing with the executive branch's overreach abetted by a supine & craven Congress and a Judicial branch all too inclined to defer to the executive when spurious security justifications are trotted out.