3 ms·

Then why does every food product have a "nutrition facts" label, mandated by the FDA, if said mandate is unconstitutional? Either some compelled speech is const

Then why does every food product have a "nutrition facts" label, mandated by the FDA, if said mandate is unconstitutional? Either some compelled speech is constitutional, or Nestle hasn't bothered to litgate it (strains credibility), or all the food manufacturers think that American consumers care enough about having the nutrition facts that they'd have a competitive disadvantage if they removed them (even less credible). Edit: My point is that "compelled speech" isn't the issue, it's "compelled false speech" vs "compelled silence", either of which infringes on the right to free speech in some way.

tptacek 4y ago
Further, if this actually gets litigated, it seems pretty likely that the DOJ will argue that the government isn't compelling "false" speech, so much as the canary's owners deliberately created a situation where compliance with a lawful compulsion to silence would require them to lie; that they more or less "banked" a lie, and then tried to pin that on the government when it was time to make the withdrawal. (That's not to say this argument, or any canary argument, would avail; who the hell knows, should be our watchwords in this matter.)
thecrash 4y ago
> why does every food product have a "nutrition facts" label, mandated by the FDA The FDA can't compel you to say anything you don't want to. But they can refuse to let you sell your product. The right to sell food isn't as strongly protected as the right to political expression.