3 ms·
Yes but the theory, at least in the US, is that the government cannot compel you to say something. That is, they can't make you put up a notice.
by hrimfaxi 1y ago
Yes but the theory, at least in the US, is that the government cannot compel you to say something. That is, they can't make you put up a notice.
- joshuamorton 1y agoMore specifically, the theory is that cannot compel you to lie, there are all kinds of cases where businesses are compelled to share specific messages.
- Andrex 1y agoAh, that was confusing to me. Thank you.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- yencabulator 1y agoAs far as I've seen, the examples of that have always been things like health warnings and ingredients lists, where showing that message is a condition of being in that (licensed) business, and applies equally to any company. Do you have a more custom example in mind?
- joshuamorton 1y agoAll sorts of consent decrees, a huge amount of union and workplace law requires things to be posted for employees.
- yencabulator 1y agoFor employee things, I can understand being required to notify parties in agreements the company has entered into. As far as I understand, consent degrees are settlements and as such a mutually-agreed mechanism for ending a lawsuit early; their terms are whatever the parties negotiate and do not come from the government.
- joshuamorton 1y agoTo be more precise, the law requires employees to publish the nlrb notice in well trafficked or otherwise conspicuous locations. I think there are other places where "government mandated corporation inform people of their rights" is a thing, especially with things like data use and sharing. In terms of consent decrees, that was the wrong example. But lots of judgements do involve various notification requirements.
- yencabulator 1y agoCar manufacturer warranty recall letters are probably a good example. I get them even though I've never done business with the car manufacturer -- I bought the vehicle from a private party. But that still sort of connects (at least in my mind) to health warnings etc. What do you think of this angle: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45892680 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45892680
- verdverm 1y agoyea, I get that, but my gut tells me this doesn't pass the sniff test It's a choice you make and action you take either way, be it not updating a canary or sending a covert financial transaction That it has not been tested in court is why it's still a "theory" (hypothesis?) My hope is that a jury of our peers would stay closer to the spirit than the letter of the law
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]