• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

1st Amendment & Corporations

My uncle died due to lung cancer after a long and very costly battle that has left my aunt and two young cousins without a father.

Curse tobacco companies.

Thankfully, I was able to get my father to stop smoking.
 
^^^ People want to smoke or drink, let them. But they should be made aware the risks they are taking.

I said nutrition facts will be next a post up. I thought of a new one. Side effects for drugs. Let's get rid of those too. After all, they make people think twice before taking the little blue pill.
 
have any of you guys actually read what the government is trying to do here? they want actual colored, graphic images of dead cancer patients with their chest stitched up, pictures of dead lungs, etc. on the cigarette packs.
in my opinion this is a bit too far. EVERYBODY knows cigarettes are harmful. EVERYBODY knows they can cause cancer. As much as I hate to admit it, it's not fair to the cigarette companies. I know they are evil, etc. But just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you can strip them of their rights, etc.
 
Lying is not protected by the first amendment.

It is about forcing a governmental voice, over the owner of the product. Would we allow the government to force stamp all cars with a health warning? Cars seriously injure 2.9 million people and kill 42,000 people a year, both users and non users. Almost 70,000 people are injured and 4,000 are killed a year from walking. Should we require that everyone that is walking to wear a sign that says "walking may kill you"?

Smoking may help you to the grave, but it does not directly kill you. Eating cheeseburgers may help you to the grave, but it does not directly kill you.

Should the government be able to directly label a product is the real question.

If the government become anti cars, are you willing to accept a graphic billboard on your car? Are you willing to allow the government to directly, by either moral or political terms, interfere with your personal life?

Bottom line, if you allow the government to have one liberty, it will not stop there.

If you are ok with the government labeling everything, you, your property, signs, with what it feels is morally or politically correct, then by all means jump over board.

As for those that had family members die from smoking, a question.

Are you demanding that same treatment for cars? Gasoline emissions have the same cancer causing agents as smoking and are a direct cause of cancer. Why not demand labels be place on cars, or are you just filing in line for this political witch hunt?
 
RiverOfIce said:
As for those that had family members die from smoking, a question.

Are you demanding that same treatment for cars? Gasoline emissions have the same cancer causing agents as smoking and are a direct cause of cancer. Why not demand labels be place on cars, or are you just filing in line for this political witch hunt?
Click to expand...

I believe that's directed towards me.

I am not demanding the same treatment for cars. What I am demanding though... is more hybrid, electric, and other alternative vehicles. That's one way of reducing noxious emissions from vehicles, just like how this is a way of reducing people from buying cigarettes and quitting.

I'm not into the whole "Is this right" debate. My beliefs on this matter is that I know what lung cancer can do to you. I saw my uncle 1 month before he died and he looked incredibly sickly due to the cancer taking complete control. I know how terribly it hurt my entire family, especially my mom who cried so much and wanted to trade her life for his because she was 15 years older than he was and my brother was already 30 and I was already in college while my uncle left behind a 3rd grader and kindergartner. He was the little brother on my mom's side of the family (3 sisters and 1 brother).

We (not including my deceased uncle's family) spent about $250,000 ($100,000 from my parents alone) on his treatments over the years and the doctors thought they got all the cancer before but if you miss one cancerous cell... it's not over. He couldn't get health care due to his condition (another system that needed reform badly), so we had to pay out of pocket. He had healthcare before but was dropped when he was diagnosed with lung cancer. (THANK YOU BLUE CROSS! :D)

As you can tell... cigarettes are simply pure evil where the cons ENORMOUSLY outweigh the pros. When someone very close in your family dies to something that could have easily been prevented (like smoking) and you see what damage it can cause and has caused... you tend to want to eliminate it.

Again, I'm not into the whole debate of "Is this right". I know smoking simply damages your body with a false assurance that it's not too bad for you since you can't see what it's doing to your body. It's a situation where "I don't see it... so I don't know or care." I can't imagine who would want to continue to smoke in a family where a prominent member and contributor the family dies as a result of it. Perhaps more people need to see first hand what it can and has done to so many families.

My uncle died as the result of an incredibly stupid decision to start smoking and became addicted. I would never defend a tobacco company because all they care about is that you become chemically addicted to a product that kills you. They don't care at all about your health or the health of others as long as you become addicted and can't easily quit buying their products. It was very evident of their intentions back a few decades ago when they hired fake doctors to promote that smoking doesn't cause cancer, even though there was plenty of evidence to support it. It reminds me of the oil industries today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B2L
The Supreme Court has taken the position that corporations have constitutional rights and that money is speech. If this goes there - as it certainly will - there is no doubt about the decision that will come down.
 
Vihzel said:
I believe that's directed towards me.
Click to expand...
Sorry about how I said that, I was not really pointing it at anyone. But reading your post, it is clear the addiction was the problem. What if he was addicted to heroin, crack, pcp, or the hundreds of other drugs (I could really argue that gasoline is an addiction too.)? Do we still get to blame the drug dealer? Smoking did not kill your family member, a life choice did. Even though 80% of all lung cancer cases have smoked some time in their life, 20% did not. In fact there is a stronger coralation between genetics and lung cancer then smoking and lung cancer. But to blame the product for a persons behavoir, is like blaming a car for the deaths, or a gun for a homicide. The drug your family member took was known to kill for the better half the last century, he still choosed to do it. I am sorry he died, but if I drive a car and get killed in a auto accident, I have only myself to blame.
OutofDate1980 said:
Stolen Valor Act | The Stolen Valor Act: It doesn't pass constitutional muster - Los Angeles Times

ROI, I can only surmise you are exhausted.
Click to expand...
I really have a hard time beleiving I have to qoute the consistution to you?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

The freedom of speech REQUIRES the speech to be TRUE. Slander, deflamation, liable, and false testonomy are all crimes, either civil or crimal that directly defineds the boundaries of what is legal. They also require intent, which is critical. You can harmlessly state an opinion with out really knowing the facts.

As for your example, of course it is protected speech. He was not using the speech to commit a crime, scam, or even deflame anyone. He had a personal lie that did not commit a crime.

Which is the bench mark. Congress (notice that word) shall make no law (ie make illegal what does not directly cause injury to any other)....abridging the freedom of speech (as long as the speech is not used for illegal means.)

If the person in question was taking money for a charity and using the medal as proof, then it is illegal, and not protected by anything. If he was deflaming those that received the medal, then it is civilivally liable.

Which brings us to tobacco, if I remember right, they did directly lie about the health problems with their drug. But, once again, that is a civil case. Legally, as long as the don't lie to officals or in a legal binding way, they can say anything they want. If it is not true, they can be sued. Nothing protects a person/corpartion from lying, if that lying causes harm or leds to illegal activity, they will have to face the courts.
 
RiverOfIce said:
... The freedom of speech REQUIRES the speech to be TRUE.

By gosh, I said you were exhausted, let me rephrase, I'm exhausted.

The court's do not agree with you, from the previously cited source.

"Chief Judge Alex Kozinski made the point more pithily: "If false factual statements are unprotected, then the government can prosecute not only the man who tells tall tales of winning the congressional Medal of Honor, but also the JDater who falsely claims he's Jewish or the dentist who assures you it won't hurt a bit. Phrases such as 'I'm working late tonight, hunny,' 'I got stuck in traffic' and 'I didn't inhale' could all be made into crimes."
Click to expand...
 
Vihzel said:
I believe that's directed towards me.

I am not demanding the same treatment for cars. What I am demanding though... is more hybrid, electric, and other alternative vehicles. That's one way of reducing noxious emissions from vehicles, just like how this is a way of reducing people from buying cigarettes and quitting.
Click to expand...

So do you think laws need to be passed? I'll not trade a '455 with 8-one barrels for a silly do nothing, laughable hybrid car. And if you leave it up to the consumer that does not want these plastic and card-stock cars, and they want power and steel and body panels repaired with lead and wax paddles, to get what you 'Demand" you need a law and if you make a law, I'll say this:

Smiley

I am demanding that every house have a heating and air conditioning system permanently set to 65 degrees in the winter to help save the planet and Mother Earth and the children... who will care for the children.

Summers are not all that bad, so forget the A/C, you will get 72 degrees and you will like it, mister. Smiley.

We know people have bad diets so I want every parent investigated to make sure they do not feed trans-fats, salt, sugar, and eggs to your kids, you child abuser, Smiley.

Where does it stop? We know how it starts, we have seen how it starts. It is fine when it applies to "them" but how dare you say it should apply to me?

I say leave the smokers alone, lest you accept what could happen to you. We know fat people die early and fast food is why. I read that on some web site somewhere some time ago. So I know I am right.

Smiley.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
RiverOfIce said:
... The freedom of speech REQUIRES the speech to be TRUE.

By gosh, I said you were exhausted, let me rephrase, I'm exhausted.

The court's do not agree with you, from the previously cited source.

"Chief Judge Alex Kozinski made the point more pithily: "If false factual statements are unprotected, then the government can prosecute not only the man who tells tall tales of winning the congressional Medal of Honor, but also the JDater who falsely claims he's Jewish or the dentist who assures you it won't hurt a bit. Phrases such as 'I'm working late tonight, hunny,' 'I got stuck in traffic' and 'I didn't inhale' could all be made into crimes."
Click to expand...

So you are saying I could legally take out billboards, radio ads and tv spots proclaiming that you were a convicted child molester and pedophile and that would be completely legal speech? Not a word of it is true and I'm lying through my teeth, but the First Amendment protects me here right?
Click to expand...
 
i don't really see how the 1st amendment applies to this situation.

it's more of an issue of what limits the government should have on forcing a company to put a logo on a product that shuns that same product. I'm all for putting a health warning on there, but I think this is too far.
 
A.Nonymous said:
OutofDate1980 said:
...Not a word of it is true and I'm lying through my teeth, but the First Amendment protects me here right?
Click to expand...

From the previously cited source "Nothing in this decision undermines laws against fraud. Misrepresentation for financial gain is not protected speech any more than a deceptive advertisement is. But when the purpose of a lie is ego gratification, the proper response is scorn, not a jail sentence."

Again, lying is protected speech, with exceptions, based on intent. Intent can be hard to determine.
Click to expand...
 
OutofDate1980 said:
From the previously cited source "Nothing in this decision undermines laws against fraud. Misrepresentation for financial gain is not protected speech any more than a deceptive advertisement is. But when the purpose of a lie is ego gratification, the proper response is scorn, not a jail sentence."

Again, lying is protected speech, with exceptions, based on intent. Intent can be hard to determine.
Click to expand...

Where is the free speech issue here? I don't see it. The cigarette companies want to advertise their products without warnings at all. You're arguing that free speech should cover that? I don't see a free speech argument here.
 
A.Nonymous said:
... I don't see a free speech argument here.
Click to expand...

From the cited source of the 1st post of this thread; "On Tuesday, a group of four companies filed a lawsuit with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, charging that the scary new labels violate the First Amendment because they go far beyond a simple factual warning about the risks of tobacco. One of those companies, Lorillard, is being represented by Floyd Abrams. The country's top First Amendment lawyer, Abrams is known for everything from representing The New York Times in the Pentagon Papers case to, most recently, representing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in the landmark Citizens United campaign finance case."

There are those with substantial resources that see a free speech argument.
 
A.Nonymous said:
Where is the free speech issue here? I don't see it. The cigarette companies want to advertise their products without warnings at all. You're arguing that free speech should cover that? I don't see a free speech argument here.
Click to expand...

But couldn't you also say that there are other products freely sold that represent a "danger?" NYC tried to ban salt in restaurants:

"No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises," the bill, A. 10129 , states in part.

The legislation, which Assemblyman Felix Ortiz , D-Brooklyn, introduced on March 5, would fine restaurants $1,000 for each violation."

If salt is a danger, why not ban its sale completely? People would scream and this would likely change the politician's minds and so it is allowed to be sold. This also means if there is a serious health issue that must be stopped, it will only be stopped if people do not object, thereby telling me it is money they care about, not health.

As I recall, the EPA did a landmark study about second hand smoke. Many/most laws were passed based upon the report. The problem was, many people called this study into question. The EPA announced the results of their study before it was completed.

Read this, if interested. It seems rather accurate:

The EPA Report on Second Hand Smoke (SHS) - The Facts

I do not object to warnings on cigarette packages. What bothers me are laws designed to punish smokers that might be based upon faulty data. That's no way to write a law. And I see no problem with cigarette smoking.

Apparently, alcohol kills 75,000 people per year, yet it is freely advertised. You cannot advertise hard liquor, however. Not sure what the death toll is for fatty foods, but it is likely high. FF is allowed on TV.
 
Why do people insist on trying to tell people what to do? Everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you, you don't need to see some label on the package that will never be read to know this. Banning salt, cigarettes and other things that are not good for people is not anyone's concern but the people consuming those things. If you do not want put yourself at risk because of these products, don't use them, but please stop telling people what they need to be personally doing with heir bodies.
 
Tommy78 said:
Why do people insist on trying to tell people what to do? Everyone knows cigarettes are bad for you, you don't need to see some label on the package that will never be read to know this. Banning salt, cigarettes and other things that are not good for people is not anyone's concern but the people consuming those things. If you do not want put yourself at risk because of these products, don't use them, but please stop telling people what they need to be personally doing with heir bodies.
Click to expand...

Or their money.
 
OutofDate1980 said:
Again, lying is protected speech, with exceptions, based on intent. Intent can be hard to determine.
Click to expand...

Ok, we need to back up here. Protected speech is between you and the government. Remember the congress part here. The consistution was not created to step in between you and another person in a bar fight.

If you lie to the government, it is not protected speech. It is a criminal act, unlike on a state level which it is now a case by case basis.

If the government makes a law that does not directly have it has a member of the said act, it is abridging that act, which is forbidden.

You can not yell fire in a theater, create a false police report, prank call anyone, and harrass and molest the general society.

Freedom of speech only applies between you and the federal government, not the state, local authorities, or even your neighbor, but you and the federal government.
 
RiverOfIce said:
... Smoking may help you to the grave, but it does not directly kill you. Eating cheeseburgers may help you to the grave, but it does not directly kill you. ...
Click to expand...

Cigarettes, when used solely as directed are physiological addictive and cause serious health consequences and have no other purpose then that of a delivery system for an addictive drug. A cheeseburger is food.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom