Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[bigdancehawk]

Guess that argument didn't work for Pfizer.

Pfizer ended up paying huge fines under the False Claims Act and civil damages for common law fraud because it promoted unapproved uses of the drug which were not effective. The First Amendment is not a license to commit fraud.
"The commercially successful marketing “miracle” of Nuerontin was achieved through a collaborative effort of the company and leading physicians who were given financial incentives to encourage their colleagues–under the pretext of providing “continuing medical education”–to prescribe a largely ineffective drug for unapproved, diverse and unrelated conditions. Essentially physicians were “educated” to use their prescribing license to increase profits rather than to improve their patients’ health. The Wall Street Journal reports that studies have found off-label use accounted for 40% to 50% of all prescriptions." LINK
Furthermore, the government can make a good argument that it has a substantial interest in prohibiting the marketing of prescription drugs for uses which have not been thoroughly tested for efficacy and safety.
ETA: Guess who ultimately ends up paying the huge fines and civil damages? Maybe we need to figure out a way to punish the individuals responsible for such things.

 

[zoiDman]

Although some governmental limitations on commercial speech are permitted, the First Amendment applies to commercial speech. ...

Isn't this at the Core of the Disputes? Just how Much Free Speech is allowed?

As an Individual, do I have Free Speech "Rights" to Yell Fire in a Crowded Theater? Or to make Slanderous Statements? No I don't. There are Limitations as to how far Free Speech extends to Individuals.

I see the Same Thing in the Commercial Sector.

It seems that where the Boundaries on these Limitations are is what the Fight is Over.

 

[bigdancehawk]

Isn't this at the Core of the Disputes? Just how Much Free Speech is allowed?

As an Individual, do I have Free Speech "Rights" to Yell Fire in a Crowded Theater? Or to make Slanderous Statements? No I don't. There are Limitations as to how far Free Speech extends to Individuals.

I see the Same Thing in the Commercial Sector.

It seems that where the Boundaries on these Limitations are is what the Fight is Over.

It's OK if there actually is a fire.
Seriously, you're quite correct. From a legal perspective, there is no such thing as an absolute right. Rights are always in conflict with other rights and it's a matter of balancing certain right against others.

ETA: The sculptor made Lady Justice look kinda hot, don't you think?

 

[Alexander Mundy]

Intended use circular reasoning is where full blown lunacy is shown and just can't be denied by any rational thinking person IMO. Having to say and in some instances label a product that does not contain anything derived from tobacco as a tobacco product? That makes whomever has to label or sell that product a forced liar and false advertiser.

 

[zoiDman]

It's OK if there actually is a fire.
Seriously, you're quite correct. From a legal perspective, there is no such thing as an absolute right. Rights are always in conflict with other rights and it's a matter of balancing certain right against others.

ETA: The sculptor made Lady Justice look kinda hot, don't you think?

Agreed. And that Balancing Act is often Hard to Define.

Easy to say what is a "Right" and what is an "Infringement" on the Extreme Ends of the Distribution Curve. But Very Different in that Soft, Fuzzy Middle.

---

And Yeah... That is a Hot Depiction of Themis. But I have always had a thing for Strong, Intelligent Women.

 

[bigdancehawk]

Intended use circular reasoning is where full blown lunacy is shown and just can't be denied by any rational thinking person IMO. Having to say and in some instances label a product that does not contain anything derived from tobacco as a tobacco product? That makes whomever has to label or sell that product a forced liar and false advertiser.

That's one of the reasons why the lawsuits are challenging those aspects of the dooming on First Amendment grounds. But the premise that people actually pay attention to such warnings is seriously flawed. California has determined that almost everything is carcinogenic, so most people ignore those warnings. If you keep crying "wolf," sooner or later the villagers will stop coming. There have been a number of studies done on traffic signs. They show that when you keep adding signs, it reaches a point where drivers get visual overload and start ignoring them.

 

[Alexander Mundy]

To the heart of the matter

 

[Kent C]

People who quote the 'fire in a crowded theater' ruse, should read the actual case and the cases that overturned that case.

First, someone yelling fire in a crowded theater may never be identified, but if they are they should pay the theater owner and the other theater guests for any harm done, rather than putting a restriction on the First Amendment. A 'contract' on the ticket or posted on the walls of the theater that any disruption will be fined by the theater owner to the extent of the damage done.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, "the law"--as some have curiously called it--can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes' quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood.

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

First, it's important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I.

Even Holmes gave up the argument later:

Even Justice Holmes may have quickly realized the gravity of his opinions in Schneck and its companion cases. Later in the same term, Holmes suddenly dissented in a similar case, Abrams vs. United States, which sent Russian immigrants to jail under the Espionage Act.


For more:
From the Palmer Raids to the Patriot Act

10. The Person Who Yells "Fire!" in a Crowded Theatre

 

[zoiDman]

People who quote the 'fire in a crowded theater' ruse, should read the actual case and the cases that overturned that case.

First, someone yelling fire in a crowded theater may never be identified, but if they are they should pay the theater owner and the other theater guests for any harm done, rather than putting a restriction on the First Amendment. A 'contract' on the ticket or posted on the walls of the theater that any disruption will be fined by the theater owner to the extent of the damage done.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, "the law"--as some have curiously called it--can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes' quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood.

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

First, it's important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I.

Even Holmes gave up the argument later:

Even Justice Holmes may have quickly realized the gravity of his opinions in Schneck and its companion cases. Later in the same term, Holmes suddenly dissented in a similar case, Abrams vs. United States, which sent Russian immigrants to jail under the Espionage Act.


For more:
From the Palmer Raids to the Patriot Act

10. The Person Who Yells "Fire!" in a Crowded Theatre

If you Feel you have the Right to yell "Fire" in a Crowed Theater (when there is No Fire), Don't let Me Stop you.

It's a Free Country. Right?

 

[bigdancehawk]

To the heart of the matter

The first federal regulatory agency was the Interstate Commerce Commission, established in 1887 to deal with monopolistic price fixing by railroads. It's amazing that the country was able to survive, prosper and grow for over 100 years without regulatory agencies. It wasn't until the mid-20th century that they really took off and now they're out of control. There have been some attempts on the part of Congress to control the monsters which they themselves have created, but these measures have proven largely ineffective. We saw that with the OMB's and SBA's reviews of the deeming regulations.

 

[bigdancehawk]

People who quote the 'fire in a crowded theater' ruse, should read the actual case and the cases that overturned that case.

First, someone yelling fire in a crowded theater may never be identified, but if they are they should pay the theater owner and the other theater guests for any harm done, rather than putting a restriction on the First Amendment. A 'contract' on the ticket or posted on the walls of the theater that any disruption will be fined by the theater owner to the extent of the damage done.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, "the law"--as some have curiously called it--can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes' quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood.

But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago.

First, it's important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I.

Even Holmes gave up the argument later:

Even Justice Holmes may have quickly realized the gravity of his opinions in Schneck and its companion cases. Later in the same term, Holmes suddenly dissented in a similar case, Abrams vs. United States, which sent Russian immigrants to jail under the Espionage Act.


For more:
From the Palmer Raids to the Patriot Act

10. The Person Who Yells "Fire!" in a Crowded Theatre

Yeah, I know. But, meh, it's still a reasonably decent shortcut analogy to express a legal concept. It's conceptually similar to defamation, inciting people to riot or murder pubic officials, making fraudulent misrepresentations, etc.

 

[Kent C]

to deal with monopolistic price fixing by railroads

A bit more complicated than that. People in rural areas wanted the same prices as those in Chicago and Philadelphia. Same as airlines today, you'll likely get better prices out of Chicago than Boise, Idaho.

Thankfully the ICC is now gone (although similar actions now span a few other agencies). It was also one of the first to abuse 'eminent domain'.

 

[Kent C]

If you Feel you have the Right to yell "Fire" in a Crowed Theater (when there is No Fire), Don't let Me Stop you.

It's a Free Country. Right?

Not anymore, and partly because of people misusing quotes that serve their own agenda.

 

[Kent C]

Yeah, I know. But, meh, it's still a reasonably decent shortcut analogy to express a legal concept. It's conceptually similar to defamation, inciting people to riot or murder pubic officials, making fraudulent misrepresentations, etc.

You mean like shouting "dead cops now"? Doesn't seem to work there either. But if a vendor says his eliquid is 'diketone free' - then that's reason to shut him down

 

[zoiDman]

Not anymore, and partly because of people misusing quotes that serve their own agenda.

"because of people misusing quotes that serve their own agenda."

You can Make this Stuff Up.

Yeah Kent... it's all a Big Plot to Subvert the Minds of Causal Reader's of Deeming Threads. And to push Hidden Agendas onto the Unaware Masses.

 

[Kent C]

"because of people misusing quotes that serve their own agenda."

You can Make this Stuff Up.

Yeah Kent... it's all a Big Plot to Subvert the Minds of Causal Reader's of Deeming Threads. And to push Hidden Agendas onto the Unaware Masses.

By repeating it you do. Anyway, most like some historical background - perhaps not you though.

 

[zoiDman]

By repeating it you do. Anyway, most like some historical background - perhaps not you though.

Nothing wrong with a little Historical Perspective. As long as one does Not Lose Track of what the Topic of Discussion is.

And falls into that Forest and Trees thing.

BTW - Do you think that Commercial Freedom of Speech "Rights" are Absolute? And Apply to ALL Situations?

 

[Semiretired]

BTW - Do you think that Commercial Freedom of Speech "Rights" are Absolute? And Apply to ALL Situations?

Of course I do... NOT...

 

[zoiDman]

Of course I do... NOT...

That's just the Subliminal Agenda Pushing that you have been Exposed to talking.

 

[Kent C]

Nothing wrong with a little Historical Perspective. As long as one does Not Lose Track of what the Topic of Discussion is.

And falls into that Forest and Trees thing.

BTW - Do you think that Commercial Freedom of Speech "Rights" are Absolute? And Apply to ALL Situations?

I didn't lose track - see my reply to bigdancehawk. I know what you're trying to do, Socrates in a vat :- ) .... but if you would recall what I've said before on diacetyl threads - IF a vendor says his eliquids are diketone free and are not - that's fraud and should be handled as such. However they wouldn't be indicted for the breach of the First Amendment.

There happen to be good arguments against fraud statements, libel, slander for upholding Free Speech even, but you wouldn't have a clue or even care, so I won't waste your time.... or mine.