3 ms·

The limits of this kind of commercial speech are very well settled. Misleading commercial speech has no first amendment protection. Tesla is just trying to ge

• rufius 3y ago
  Agreed. First amendment protections should only apply to individuals anyway. Tesla doesn’t have a sane argument here since Tesla is not a person. (I recognize there’s a whole bag of worms around corporations and attempts to treat them like individuals in the eyes of the law.)
  • Tangurena2 3y ago
    The US Supreme Court says that corporations are people, and therefore every civil right that applies to humans applies to corporations. I suppose that will make things easier for aliens (if they ever move to Earth) to have the same civil/legal rights as humans. I guess replicants will all need to incorporate in order to avoid being slaves (to avoid a Bladerunner future).
    • jcranmer 3y ago
      That's patently false. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, for example, doesn't apply to corporations.
    • lupusreal 3y ago
      The supreme court said that people don't lose their first amendment rights just because they form a political advocacy group.
      • hedora 3y ago
        They also literally said “corporations are people”.
        • lupusreal 3y ago
          Corporations are groups of people. And citizens united was a political advocacy group.
  • burnerburnson 3y ago
    That logic doesn't pass muster. Imagine if a state passed a similar law and then started piling fines on newspapers for misleading reporting. Clearly, the mere fact that the newspaper is a corporation doesn't dissolve its speech rights (nor should it).
• kjksf 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • ziddoap 3y ago
    >Of all people you should read the article or Tesla's actual claims instead of opining on something they didn't claim. Just because you don't agree with what someone has written does not mean that they didn't read the article.
  • LeafItAlone 3y ago
    > Also the "logic" of "Tesla is just trying to generate news" because they are fighting government in court is just... Is just what?
  • jcranmer 3y ago
    The actual affirmative defense raised says: > Specifically, the Complainant’s claim under Cal. Veh. Code § 24011.5 is barred because the statute is facially invalid under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2, of the California Constitution, as a substantial number of the statute’s applications impermissibly restrict constitutionally protected speech that is truthful and nonmisleading. The Complainant’s claims under Cal. Veh. Code § 24011.5, Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(5), Cal. Code Regs. Title 13 § 260.00, and Cal. Veh. Code § 11713(a) are also barred because these statutes and regulations, as applied to Tesla in this proceeding, are unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 2, of the California Constitution, as they impermissibly restrict Tesla’s truthful and nonmisleading speech about its vehicles and their features. Now, to be fair, you have to raise every defense you might want to raise at some point in the litigation in the answer to the complaint, so just because it's listed as an affirmative defense doesn't necessarily mean Tesla is actually going to use that defense. But given that it's the first affirmative defense raised, it does feel like Tesla is going to very strongly litigate this argument. But this is commercial speech, plain and simple, and the First Amendment is widely agreed to permit these kind of restrictions on commercial speech. It's not even close; SCOTUS won't even bother hear to the case should Tesla be stupid enough to appeal it that far.
• dsaavy 3y ago
  Like with the Pepsi jet commercial?