Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[Kent C]

''1st amendment'' comment in a defensive manner it has been mostly used for people that were being A holes.

Fortunately (or unfortunately) it was for those types, the 1st Amendment was concerned. Maybe not specifically for A..... , but what many may consider them as. For all others, the 1st Amendment isn't necessary.

Thoroughly enjoyed your post - I'd be the "what would you recommend?" customer

 

[UncLeJunkLe]

I have been in many a restaurant that had a sign posted saying "We reserve the RIGHT to refuse service to anybody", and many of them meant it.

I think its the same way with private forums. ECF has the right to choose whether or not someone can post or even view the site. They dont "have" to have a good reason.

Facebook and Twitter and the like have the same right, unless the government deems them to be something other than a private venture.


ETA: That being said, I remember a case of a bakery who refused to do a wedding cake for a gay couple, I think they were hounded for Civil Rights violations. Not sure I understand how the government has any say in it. There is also the case of Hobby Lobby refusing to cover abortion expenses due to religious beliefs.

My company, my rules, is my belief, though the government may not agree.

How and if the govt intervenes depends on whether the "right" people/organizations are the victims.

When you look at it through the "proper" lens, it all makes "perfect sense". You must've been on vacation when they were handing those lenses out. I was, too, but I found one on Ebay.

 

[UncLeJunkLe]

You mean like what we saw and are learning more by the day about what happened on 6 January in D.C.?

People were advocating murder on sites leading up to 6 January. In the video's at the Capitol it is very clearly heard who they wanted to murder.

I have 3 angles of that murder on my hard drive.

 

[Javichu]

Fortunately (or unfortunately) it was for those types, the 1st Amendment was concerned. Maybe not specifically for A..... , but what many may consider them as. For all others, the 1st Amendment isn't necessary.

Thoroughly enjoyed your post - I'd be the "what would you recommend?" customer

Glad to hear you would be in the "what would you recommend?" group.

Funny story and how it is not good to judge a book by it's cover.
Family came in once,father,mother and their 3 kids.
Keep in mind we were in White Rock (British Colombia),weekends a lot of Americans crossed the border to come to White Rock to go at the beach and have a meal.

Well anyway,they walk in well looking like farmers,overalls,lot of flannel,etc,etc.

By their accent i could tell they were Americans,so i get ready to take the order when the father asks me what part of Spain i was from.
He actually knew where my town was,i mean literally in the map of Spain he knew it like he really did.

So he tells me all about his dream holidays and he says Spain is on the top of the list,man i was so proud and happy.
He knew so much,not about Spain only but about Europe in general,i mean just looking at him you would have never guessed it.

He asked me what i recommended so i told him a Paella for two,kids could just get a 3 piece order of fish and chips and i would add some extra fries on the house.

These guys became some of my best customers,2 or 3 times a month they would come and they always wanted to try a new dish.

That is why i always say never judge a book by it's cover.

On the other side of the spectrum i once had this posh and fancy guy come in with his girlfriend,ask if it was a Spanish restaurant and when i said yes he replied yeah i don't need to see the menu,just bring us some fajitas and burritos

P.S:Spanish restaurant serving fish and chips? yeah i know,but we were located in the beach front part where all the fish and chips restaurants were located so we just put them in the menu so we wouldn't lose on those sales.

Dang,past 2 am here,need to catch some Zzz's,cya tomorrow folks

 

[2Sassy4u]

Fortunately (or unfortunately) it was for those types, the 1st Amendment was concerned. Maybe not specifically for A..... , but what many may consider them as. For all others, the 1st Amendment isn't necessary.

Thoroughly enjoyed your post - I'd be the "what would you recommend?" customer

I beg to differ on this one, the first amendment is there to allow people to express dissent such as anti-war protests and the civil rights movement. The people of Nazi Germany didn't have that right and look what happened.

Does it also protect a-holes? Sure it does. Should it? all I can say is it's a slippery slope letting the government decide whether or not something is a-holish enough to not be protected speech.

 

[zoiDman]

... ECF has the right to choose whether or not someone can post or even view the site. They dont "have" to have a good reason.

Facebook and Twitter and the like have the same right, unless the government deems them to be something other than a private venture.

...

Agreed.

"Private actors, private property, private companies

Despite the common misconception that the First Amendment prohibits anyone from limiting free speech,[77] the text of the amendment only prohibits the US Congress (and, by extension, those that derive their powers from Congress) from doing so."

Freedom of speech in the United States - Wikipedia

Someone very famous once said that "Your Right to Do Something Can Not be Violated if You Didn't have that Right in the First Place."

 

[Vapeon4Life]

So let me sum up where we have gone on this post pertaining to Deeming Regulations - A government 'control freak' agenda manifesto - Dare you question the righteous and mighty government? And dare you use the Constitution of the US to do it? It's a lot more than a free speech issue that we are dealing with - Its personal rights and freedoms, all our Constitutional rights that are at stake!

I understand this is not China {most vape products are coming out of China, do they still allow vaping in China?} - As of recently:

"
China’s electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) industry accounts for close to 90% of global production. Based in Shenzhen in Guangdong province, an estimated 3,900 manufacturers employed some 2 million people in 2018 and reported sales of 33.7bn yuan (US$ 4.8bn) and exports worth 28.7bn yuan (US$ 4bn). Figures for the first three financial quarters of 2019 showed a 175% increase in domestic sales, and put export sales at US$6.2bn. Initially export-driven, the industry has recently made inroads into the domestic market and there are now some 10 million users in China, mostly aged between 15 and 24 years.

Importantly, the e-cigarette sector has operated with little regulatory oversight, and remains independent of the state monopoly China National Tobacco Corporation (CNTC), which oversees all aspects of the tobacco business in the country........."

China’s e-cigarette manufacturers facing uncertain future | Blog - Tobacco Control

Apparently they have passed some regulation's there too

- Still can you see how bad these American 'tobacco nazis' have become? Will it be free-er to vape in China then the US?

So let me sum up the real threat - It's not a freedom of speech issue, nor was it that a hundred years ago when the 'Prohibitionists' rose up and created the Huge Underworld of today because of how 'evil' they said alcohol was - The issue is 'control freaks'
- Who, and I can right a book on this, take minor problems and almost always make them worse, and very often much worse !!!

And finally, isn't that that the issue the original Constitution of the United States was created for? - to protect us from 'control freaks' ?!?!

 

[2Sassy4u]

So let me sum up where we have gone on this post pertaining to Deeming Regulations - A government 'control freak' agenda manifesto - Dare you question the righteous and mighty government? And dare you use the Constitution of the US to do it?

I understand this is not China {most vape products are coming out of China, do they still allow vaping in China?} - As of recently:

"
China’s electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) industry accounts for close to 90% of global production. Based in Shenzhen in Guangdong province, an estimated 3,900 manufacturers employed some 2 million people in 2018 and reported sales of 33.7bn yuan (US$ 4.8bn) and exports worth 28.7bn yuan (US$ 4bn). Figures for the first three financial quarters of 2019 showed a 175% increase in domestic sales, and put export sales at US$6.2bn. Initially export-driven, the industry has recently made inroads into the domestic market and there are now some 10 million users in China, mostly aged between 15 and 24 years.

Importantly, the e-cigarette sector has operated with little regulatory oversight, and remains independent of the state monopoly China National Tobacco Corporation (CNTC), which oversees all aspects of the tobacco business in the country........."

China’s e-cigarette manufacturers facing uncertain future | Blog - Tobacco Control

Apparently they have passed some regulation's there too

- Still can you see how bad these American 'tobacco nazis' have become? Will it be free-er to vape in Chinas then the US?

So let me sum up the real threat - It's not a freedom of speech issue, nor was it that a hundred years ago when the 'Prohibitionists' rose up and created the Hugh Underworld of today because of how 'evil' they said alcohol was - The issue is 'control freaks'
- Who, and I can right a book on this, take minor problems and almost always make them worse, and very often much worse !!!

To "save" us from ourselves. That's how they take freedoms away one bite at a time in the name of safety.

 

[Kent C]

I beg to differ on this one, the first amendment is there to allow people to express dissent such as anti-war protests and the civil rights movement. The people of Nazi Germany didn't have that right and look what happened.

Interesting take in that those who wrote the First Amendment, weren't too fond of the anti-war protesters of that time - Colonialists who were loyal to the Crown; and... many of them didn't exactly have the view of "civil" rights the way we understand them today. D'uh on the last sentence.

Does it also protect a-holes? Sure it does. Should it? all I can say is it's a slippery slope letting the government decide whether or not something is a-holish enough to not be protected speech.

I agree. I wasn't saying it was only for a-holes, just that it wasn't needed for nice people like us here

 

[CMD-Ky]

Oliver Wendell Holmes thought that falsely yelling "Fire" in a crowed theater was impermissible.

I would Hope He Does. And it would be a Sad Day if we ever got to a Point where He didn't.

This is the Other Side of a "Free Speech" debate. When does an Individual Not have the Right to Free Speech?

 

[MacTechVpr]

Oliver Wendell Holmes thought that falsely yelling "Fire" in a crowed theater was impermissible.

Motive and intent matter.

For example, I bear no one ill will towards anyone for truly wanting to help children if it is earnest in its intent. To deceptively suit the dedicated financial or political interests of privileged artificial entity under the color of law however is quite another.

Good luck.

 

[Javichu]

Is it just me who wonders what the constitution and its amendments would be like if they were written in the current era we live in?

I'm willing to bet 20 bucks that instead of 33 amendments we would have 66.

Those extra 33 would have to be related one way or the other with Internet/Social media and the correct use of pronouns (improper use would probably give you a nice vacation in Guantanamo).

 

[CMD-Ky]

I cannot imagine what the Constitution would look like if written today. The thought makes me shudder.

 

[2Sassy4u]

Interesting take in that those who wrote the First Amendment, weren't too fond of the anti-war protesters of that time - Colonialists who were loyal to the Crown; and... many of them didn't exactly have the view of "civil" rights the way we understand them today. D'uh on the last sentence.




I agree. I wasn't saying it was only for a-holes, just that it wasn't needed for nice people like us here

Those were just examples of protesting the status quo or the current Government. They wanted to be able to express dissent, something they weren't able to do without repercussion while under the jurisdiction of the English crown (which I'm sure you know).

There were differing viewpoints of varying degrees on civil rights as we know them today. Most likely few to none in line with how we see them. The specifics of what was being protested was not my point. the freedom to protest was.

Fair enough but it's the a-holes that make it so necessary

 

[CMD-Ky]

Interesting take in that those who wrote the First Amendment, weren't too fond of the anti-war protesters of that time - Colonialists who were loyal to the Crown; and... many of them didn't exactly have the view of "civil" rights the way we understand them today. D'uh on the last sentence.

There are those who think that the First Amendment was designed to protect speech by those with whom we disagree. I subscribe to this view and that is why I don't call for the banning of speech by socialists.
We have changed greatly over the years through the use of the amendment process, the Fourteenth Amendment and the 'commerce clause'. Generally the changes have been for the better.

 

[2Sassy4u]

There are those who think that the First Amendment was designed to protect speech by those with whom we disagree. I subscribe to this view and that is why I don't call for the banning of speech by socialists.
We have changed greatly over the years through the use of the amendment process, the Fourteenth Amendment and the 'commerce clause'. Generally the changes have been for the better.

It's also worth noting that not all wars are equal in most views. For instance, I think most would agree that our involvement in WW 2 was necessary and perhaps we should've gotten more involved sooner. However, Vietnam (although not technically a war) was a waste and at the very least should've been brought to a halt much sooner. Very few are either for or against war across the board no matter the circumstances.

I also don't think there are many of us that wish we were still under the rule of England/Brittain/the UK.

 

[thanswr1]

Fascinating discussion about the First Amendment.

BTW, anything new on the Deeming Regulation front?

 

[borno]

All vaping discussions will be banned next (I predict)
"and this song will fade out, I predict"

 

[zoiDman]

...

BTW, anything new on the Deeming Regulation front?

Not much.

The FDA Seized 33,681 e-Cigarettes at the DFW Airport worth 720K or so...

CBP, FDA Seize Counterfeit, Unauthorized E-Cigarettes

Dick Durbin is Beating the Drum again...

Durbin & Bipartisan Senators Urge FDA to Protect Kids as it Reviews E-Cigarette Applications | U.S. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois

Oh and Biden has Picked an Acting FDA Commissionaire...

Biden Picks FDA Veteran Janet Woodcock as Acting Commissioner - Vaping360

Aside from that, things have been Pretty Quiet.

 

[Bronze]

I cannot imagine what the Constitution would look like if written today. The thought makes me shudder.

I cannot imagine what would be under our feet right now if the Constitution had not been written when it was. But I have a feeling we're gonna find out soon.