4 ms·

Requiring a site to display what you say is a pretty high bar. That is pretty obviously breaking the first amendment right to say what you want to say. Doesn'

Requiring a site to display what you say is a pretty high bar. That is pretty obviously breaking the first amendment right to say what you want to say. Doesn't mean it can't happen but legally the bar is quite high to justify that.

gjsman-1000 3y ago
Not really. Cigarettes were forced to cover, like, 40% of their box with warnings about their ability to cause cancer, harm fertility, and impair breathing capacity. The FDA strictly regulates what medicines, as well as unapproved medicinal products, are allowed to say on their box. Multivitamin? You can say it supports health, but not that it improves health. General electronics? You'd better have that FCC logo on it, showing that it was tested and certified, if it has any wireless radios in it. And if you're in Europe, CE belongs on basically everything. Fireplaces? Anything with fire? Plumbing? Power conversion? Power delivery? Better have a certification from a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL), like UL or CSA. Why are websites of any kind unique? In principle, the government can compel speech on products.
- Guvante 3y ago
  Why do you assume your examples didn't pass the high bar I mentioned? Don't pretend that the cigarette labeling was as simple as this bill. That was an incredibly complex process that took decades. Restricting what can be said is not the same as forcing speech. (This is in reference to your FDA comment which is a different topic) You added more examples all of which have significant effort and legal backing to their enforcement. Most notably most of those examples come from working with the industry to create standards for safety. All of them were developed working with the impacted industries and had solid justifications for why the labelling requirement is needed. Especially anything involving natural gas. If you fuck up the natural gas line going into your house that doesn't just impact you it impacts anyone within several hundred yards of your house. Similarly electrical requirements are either the federal government giving away access to a public good (frequencies of light for exclusive use) in exchange for certain restrictions on devices or electrical things that are quite dangerous again. Actual proven safety is different than "I decided it was harmful" and pretending that they are the same is ignorant at best.
  - gjsman-1000 3y ago
    > Restricting what can be said is not the same as forcing speech. Well, it's awfully creative of you to frame warnings, that manufacturers are forced to print, as a "restriction" of speech. Edit: The above paragraph was expanded by 2/3s since I wrote this comment. I have no interest in responding further.
    - Guvante 3y ago
      FDA saying "don't lie that you improve things without proof" is a restriction
lettergram 3y ago
Doesn't California require every brand to post that "what this item contains can cause cancer"? I generally agree with you, but I think that ship sailed back in the early 1900's with the push for the FDA, USDA, etc.
- Guvante 3y ago
  Clear labeling based on scientific studies isn't the same thing as open ended phrasing.
  - User23 3y ago
    Are you seriously saying prop 65 warnings are useful or based on science in any meaningful way?
    - Guvante 3y ago
      Honestly on a whole, yes. We now use less lead in consumer goods because of the label. I would assume other carcinogens were similarly reduced in usage to avoid the labeling requirement. All prop 65 warnings are required only for substances that show an increase in cancer risk. We can argue whether a higher increase in risk should be required but pretending that "increase in risk" is a lie because the naive reading assumes a higher magnitude of impact doesn't mean it isn't science based.
- crooked-v 3y ago
  California requires brands to post that about things that can actually cause cancer. The reason brands put that label on absolutely everything is because there's no restrictions on doing so and it's cheaper than actually doing the research.
devmunchies 3y ago
Then many states are also violating the 2nd amendment by requiring an ID or gun safety card.
- Guvante 3y ago
  I am referencing established precedent with regards to compelled speech which per precedent is required to reach a higher standard of importance than other first amendment questions. You are referencing untested hypothetical challenges against laws you disagree with. Also note I didn't say the Texas law was illegal or wrong. I said compelling speech requires a higher bar to be constitutional.
  - devmunchies 3y ago
    > You are referencing untested hypothetical challenges against laws you disagree with An assumption. I also didn’t say whether the 2nd amendment laws were illegal or wrong.
    - Guvante 3y ago
      The preposition you gave was entirely "you don't like this law so let me give you a law that you do like as a counter example". Don't pretend it was anything else.

gjsman-1000 3y ago

Not really. Cigarettes were forced to cover, like, 40% of their box with warnings about their ability to cause cancer, harm fertility, and impair breathing capacity. The FDA strictly regulates what medicines, as well as unapproved medicinal products, are allowed to say on their box. Multivitamin? You can say it supports health, but not that it improves health. General electronics? You'd better have that FCC logo on it, showing that it was tested and certified, if it has any wireless radios in it. And if you're in Europe, CE belongs on basically everything. Fireplaces? Anything with fire? Plumbing? Power conversion? Power delivery? Better have a certification from a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL), like UL or CSA. Why are websites of any kind unique? In principle, the government can compel speech on products.

Guvante 3y ago
Why do you assume your examples didn't pass the high bar I mentioned? Don't pretend that the cigarette labeling was as simple as this bill. That was an incredibly complex process that took decades. Restricting what can be said is not the same as forcing speech. (This is in reference to your FDA comment which is a different topic) You added more examples all of which have significant effort and legal backing to their enforcement. Most notably most of those examples come from working with the industry to create standards for safety. All of them were developed working with the impacted industries and had solid justifications for why the labelling requirement is needed. Especially anything involving natural gas. If you fuck up the natural gas line going into your house that doesn't just impact you it impacts anyone within several hundred yards of your house. Similarly electrical requirements are either the federal government giving away access to a public good (frequencies of light for exclusive use) in exchange for certain restrictions on devices or electrical things that are quite dangerous again. Actual proven safety is different than "I decided it was harmful" and pretending that they are the same is ignorant at best.
- gjsman-1000 3y ago
  > Restricting what can be said is not the same as forcing speech. Well, it's awfully creative of you to frame warnings, that manufacturers are forced to print, as a "restriction" of speech. Edit: The above paragraph was expanded by 2/3s since I wrote this comment. I have no interest in responding further.
  - Guvante 3y ago
    FDA saying "don't lie that you improve things without proof" is a restriction

lettergram 3y ago

Doesn't California require every brand to post that "what this item contains can cause cancer"? I generally agree with you, but I think that ship sailed back in the early 1900's with the push for the FDA, USDA, etc.

Guvante 3y ago
Clear labeling based on scientific studies isn't the same thing as open ended phrasing.
- User23 3y ago
  Are you seriously saying prop 65 warnings are useful or based on science in any meaningful way?
  - Guvante 3y ago
    Honestly on a whole, yes. We now use less lead in consumer goods because of the label. I would assume other carcinogens were similarly reduced in usage to avoid the labeling requirement. All prop 65 warnings are required only for substances that show an increase in cancer risk. We can argue whether a higher increase in risk should be required but pretending that "increase in risk" is a lie because the naive reading assumes a higher magnitude of impact doesn't mean it isn't science based.
crooked-v 3y ago
California requires brands to post that about things that can actually cause cancer. The reason brands put that label on absolutely everything is because there's no restrictions on doing so and it's cheaper than actually doing the research.

devmunchies 3y ago

Then many states are also violating the 2nd amendment by requiring an ID or gun safety card.

Guvante 3y ago
I am referencing established precedent with regards to compelled speech which per precedent is required to reach a higher standard of importance than other first amendment questions. You are referencing untested hypothetical challenges against laws you disagree with. Also note I didn't say the Texas law was illegal or wrong. I said compelling speech requires a higher bar to be constitutional.
- devmunchies 3y ago
  > You are referencing untested hypothetical challenges against laws you disagree with An assumption. I also didn’t say whether the 2nd amendment laws were illegal or wrong.
  - Guvante 3y ago
    The preposition you gave was entirely "you don't like this law so let me give you a law that you do like as a counter example". Don't pretend it was anything else.