7 ms·

Even if it falls under free speech, which it definitely doesn't AFAICT, it'd be essentially the same as allowing any food producer to just forego an ingredients

Even if it falls under free speech, which it definitely doesn't AFAICT, it'd be essentially the same as allowing any food producer to just forego an ingredients list. Because surely, accurate ingredients are compelled speech and thus a free speech violation.

macintux 3y ago
The Supreme Court may soon decide to change how regulatory agencies can enforce those practices. https://www.govexec.com/management/2023/11/supreme-court-appears-ready-deal-another-blow-federal-agencies-administrative-powers/392348/ https://www.govexec.com/management/2023/11/supreme-court-app...
- Aloha 3y ago
  It's not clear that this would affect how a state agency regulates, or their regulatory power. Federal and State authority are derived from different sources.
  - macintux 3y ago
    I assume ingredient lists, which the parent comment referred to, are handled federally.
pizza234 3y ago
Correct, this is the part of the article expressing this concept: > Despite Tesla's free speech claim, the US and state governments can enforce laws banning deceptive practices that harm consumers. "Beyond the category of common-law fraud, the Supreme Court has also said that false or misleading commercial speech may be prohibited," a Congressional Research Service report last year stated. "For constitutional purposes, commercial speech is speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction or that relates solely to the speaker's and audience's economic interests. Accordingly, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can regulate deceptive commercial speech without violating the First Amendment."
- lelandfe 3y ago
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commercial_speech https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commercial_speech The very first requirement in the Central Hudson test is that the commercial speech not be misleading. This move from Tesla is either done to waste time or get free advertising. It’s certainly accomplished the latter.
  - rchaud 3y ago
    "Elon the free speech warrior"...feels like I've heard this tune before.
- codedokode 3y ago
  It is interesting how widely Constinution and laws can be interpreted. Why not regulate speech that criticizes the government because it causes harm, seeds distrust in government institutions and misleads voters to make the wrong choice.
  - andsoitis 3y ago
    A good starting point for understanding First Amendment constraints on government power to regulate deception is the U.S. Supreme Court's declaration of "common ground" in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.: Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas. But there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. Neither the intentional lie nor the careless error materially advances society's interest in "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" debate on public issues. You can read more about Deception and the First Amendment in this UCLA Law Review article: https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/34_53UCLALRev11072005-2006.pdf https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/34_...
    - auggierose 3y ago
      Of course the problem is that „fact“ is ill-defined. I am sure Iran will agree with above statement, it’s just that their set of facts is different from those of US judges.
keep_reading 3y ago
They're allowed to put all sorts of things on food packaging because of "free speech". One example is misleading unprotected terms of provenance. e.g., Port wine made in California isn't really Port wine, but it's allowed on the market under that name. Funny enough the only thing that really is protected like this is Scotch Whisky due to a trade agreement that has us hunting down any producer in the USA that advertises an American whiskey as a Scotch whisky. Don't forget that "free range" chicken doesn't mean shit, neither does "grass fed" beef. False advertising on food is everywhere in the USA.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  No. None of those have anything to do with the principle of free speech. Port wine has a legal definition in the US. You can't sell it as champagne or as cola. However, it is true that ingredient, food and drink labels may have different definitions from those used in other countries, or from what you personally think they should be. But they still have actual definitions that have to be followed. (Except for subjective, non-technical terms like "tasty", "artisanal", etc.)
  - keep_reading 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      > You should actually read it instead of making retarded statements like "hurr durr you can't sell wine as cola" Please take a look at the HN guidelines. Calling other people's statements "retarded" and being otherwise insulting is very much against them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
noxer 3y ago
Since when is a ingredients list and ad? None of the ads related laws apply to ingredient lists. This utter nonsensical comparison that isn't rooted in any law, just a random idea some journalist apparently had. Also since Tesla does not officially make ads (may have changed recently, probably the reason why they looked into the law), this whole claim relates to the law limiting speech not to anything Tesla ever said in anything that could be considered an ad. The issue here is that the law forbids certain statements. That alone is the issue. Whether or not Tesla could/would/want to make these statements about heir car and if they would be truthful is completely irrelevant. There isn't any allegation that the law was broken, the allegation is that the law limits speech that could be truthful and protected. (I'm not the court I wont decide if this is correct.)
- guax 3y ago
  Open Tesla website. Does it show information about a product it's seling? That's an ad. Have they provided information about said products elsewhere? Where those... advertised to people, let's say, via the CEO on a publishing platform?

macintux 3y ago

The Supreme Court may soon decide to change how regulatory agencies can enforce those practices. https://www.govexec.com/management/2023/11/supreme-court-appears-ready-deal-another-blow-federal-agencies-administrative-powers/392348/ https://www.govexec.com/management/2023/11/supreme-court-app...

Aloha 3y ago
It's not clear that this would affect how a state agency regulates, or their regulatory power. Federal and State authority are derived from different sources.
- macintux 3y ago
  I assume ingredient lists, which the parent comment referred to, are handled federally.

pizza234 3y ago

Correct, this is the part of the article expressing this concept: > Despite Tesla's free speech claim, the US and state governments can enforce laws banning deceptive practices that harm consumers. "Beyond the category of common-law fraud, the Supreme Court has also said that false or misleading commercial speech may be prohibited," a Congressional Research Service report last year stated. "For constitutional purposes, commercial speech is speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction or that relates solely to the speaker's and audience's economic interests. Accordingly, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can regulate deceptive commercial speech without violating the First Amendment."

lelandfe 3y ago
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commercial_speech https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commercial_speech The very first requirement in the Central Hudson test is that the commercial speech not be misleading. This move from Tesla is either done to waste time or get free advertising. It’s certainly accomplished the latter.
- rchaud 3y ago
  "Elon the free speech warrior"...feels like I've heard this tune before.
codedokode 3y ago
It is interesting how widely Constinution and laws can be interpreted. Why not regulate speech that criticizes the government because it causes harm, seeds distrust in government institutions and misleads voters to make the wrong choice.
- andsoitis 3y ago
  A good starting point for understanding First Amendment constraints on government power to regulate deception is the U.S. Supreme Court's declaration of "common ground" in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.: Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas. But there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. Neither the intentional lie nor the careless error materially advances society's interest in "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" debate on public issues. You can read more about Deception and the First Amendment in this UCLA Law Review article: https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/34_53UCLALRev11072005-2006.pdf https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/34_...
  - auggierose 3y ago
    Of course the problem is that „fact“ is ill-defined. I am sure Iran will agree with above statement, it’s just that their set of facts is different from those of US judges.

keep_reading 3y ago

They're allowed to put all sorts of things on food packaging because of "free speech". One example is misleading unprotected terms of provenance. e.g., Port wine made in California isn't really Port wine, but it's allowed on the market under that name. Funny enough the only thing that really is protected like this is Scotch Whisky due to a trade agreement that has us hunting down any producer in the USA that advertises an American whiskey as a Scotch whisky. Don't forget that "free range" chicken doesn't mean shit, neither does "grass fed" beef. False advertising on food is everywhere in the USA.

crazygringo 3y ago
No. None of those have anything to do with the principle of free speech. Port wine has a legal definition in the US. You can't sell it as champagne or as cola. However, it is true that ingredient, food and drink labels may have different definitions from those used in other countries, or from what you personally think they should be. But they still have actual definitions that have to be followed. (Except for subjective, non-technical terms like "tasty", "artisanal", etc.)
- keep_reading 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    > You should actually read it instead of making retarded statements like "hurr durr you can't sell wine as cola" Please take a look at the HN guidelines. Calling other people's statements "retarded" and being otherwise insulting is very much against them. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

noxer 3y ago

Since when is a ingredients list and ad? None of the ads related laws apply to ingredient lists. This utter nonsensical comparison that isn't rooted in any law, just a random idea some journalist apparently had. Also since Tesla does not officially make ads (may have changed recently, probably the reason why they looked into the law), this whole claim relates to the law limiting speech not to anything Tesla ever said in anything that could be considered an ad. The issue here is that the law forbids certain statements. That alone is the issue. Whether or not Tesla could/would/want to make these statements about heir car and if they would be truthful is completely irrelevant. There isn't any allegation that the law was broken, the allegation is that the law limits speech that could be truthful and protected. (I'm not the court I wont decide if this is correct.)

guax 3y ago
Open Tesla website. Does it show information about a product it's seling? That's an ad. Have they provided information about said products elsewhere? Where those... advertised to people, let's say, via the CEO on a publishing platform?