FDA Does Intended Use violate the First Amendment?
- Thread starter curiousJan
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
As previously mentioned, the only way I'd take my own site down is if they applied pressure to my webhost, such that if I didn't remove it, my entire acct would be suspended. But y'know... there's a lot of freehosts. I might not be able to use php and MySQL on a freehost, but I'm really good at plain old HTML/CSS, I could put up the same site in a plain hand-coded HTML format at any freehost in the world. Let 'em play whack-a-mole.
Andria
And in what context with a link please? I'm assuming we are talking about "consumer" speech and not "commercial" speech. BTW, as I previously mentioned during the bubble days of diet supplements, loose weight with this or that, and fortune telling I have witnessed and been privy to affiliate networks who were not properly policing what their affiliates were saying via the adverts and might I add the claims were outlandish. In this context consumers continued to talk, post, scream, and bloviate /lol /joke about how great this or that was in curing <fill in the blanks> but all of the enforcement action was only directed at either the advertiser and or their "agent" (affiliate networks or sites that sold directly to advertisers). A simple warning, termination of the earnings, pull the campaign, and presto the issue was resolved.
Isn't there a difference between testimonial and review? I thought those were 2 different things.
It strikes me as bizarre and perhaps a First Amendment violation to prohibit sellers from making true statements, such as " this product has helped many people quit smoking." Smoking is not a disease or illness. It is a voluntary recreational activity.
Edit: substitute "facist" for "bizarre."
Edit: substitute "facist" for "bizarre."
Last edited:
That's just one thing I don't get about all this. I understand there's a good law to prohibit sellers from saying untrue things, or even things that aren't proven... but to prohibit them saying ACTUALLY TRUE things? That's like making it a law that the emperor is clothed, even when everyone can see he's buck-nekkid. Or perhaps the "doublespeak" of 1984.
"War is Peace" "bad is good" "up is down" etc etc etc!!!I think all this crap about e-cigs is our wakeup call that there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with our gov't, and it needs to be fixed PRONTO!
Andria
It's doublethink and Newspeak. And let's not forget thoughtcrime and the Ministry of Truth, which was engaged in suppressing it and substituting falsehoods. Although it seemed preposterous the first time I read it many years ago , there are now a number of countries doing all that and worse, and this country is rapidly headed in the same direction.That's just one thing I don't get about all this. I understand there's a good law to prohibit sellers from saying untrue things, or even things that aren't proven... but to prohibit them saying ACTUALLY TRUE things? That's like making it a law that the emperor is clothed, even when everyone can see he's buck-nekkid. Or perhaps the "doublespeak" of 1984.
I think all this crap about e-cigs is our wakeup call that there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with our gov't, and it needs to be fixed PRONTO!
Andria
It's going to be difficult, with more and more people dependent on government largesse. It will probably require a crisis of major proportions. I think we already have a crisis in journalism and an educational crisis as well, but I'm very much in the minority.Do you actually still believe that government can be "fixed"?
Yes! I read the entire intended use proposed rule again. With respect to "commercial speech" it really really makes me upset and raises my blood pressure sky high which for someone of my age is not healthy. ./lol IMHO, it will be challenged in court and I would not be surprised to see Floyd Abrams involved in the suit. He was the lead in the BT vs FDA legal battle and he won because the FDA overreached in restricting commercial speech. In this case it was labeling and in another it was POS warnings in NYC. I think it may be on it's way to the Supreme Court? but so far the FDA lost!
With respect to "consumer speech" I'm still researching but so far I can not find a single instance where the FDA or any other regulatory agency has actually used a consumers "post" against a vendor in their enforcement actions. Within the context of my previous post on this subject. I'm searching for a track record and I understand what the totality of the intended use proposed rule is.
Andria, should note some of the text in the following warning/compliance letter (at the bottom) the FDA recently sent to Leaf Only LLC. Their is not a single reference to this vendors Forum (consumer speech). The link to this forum which is hosted on the same domain appears on the home page. All of the assertions which the FDA makes are based solely on the contents of the web site. The letter does contain an interesting section which appears to support exactly what I said about commercial speech in my previous posts on this issue:
"It is your responsibility to ensure that your tobacco products and all related labeling and/or advertising on this website, on any other websites (including e-commerce, social networking, or search engine websites), in any other media in which you advertise, and in any retail establishments comply with each applicable provision of the FD&C Act and FDA’s implementing regulations...."
I certainly welcome and embrace links for real enforcement actions by any US regulatory agency which have used "consumer speech" against a given vendor, given the context which I previously provided. I can also respect anyone who doesn't like the prospect/posibility of restricting "consumer speech".
With respect to "consumer speech" I'm still researching but so far I can not find a single instance where the FDA or any other regulatory agency has actually used a consumers "post" against a vendor in their enforcement actions. Within the context of my previous post on this subject. I'm searching for a track record and I understand what the totality of the intended use proposed rule is.
Andria, should note some of the text in the following warning/compliance letter (at the bottom) the FDA recently sent to Leaf Only LLC. Their is not a single reference to this vendors Forum (consumer speech). The link to this forum which is hosted on the same domain appears on the home page. All of the assertions which the FDA makes are based solely on the contents of the web site. The letter does contain an interesting section which appears to support exactly what I said about commercial speech in my previous posts on this issue:
"It is your responsibility to ensure that your tobacco products and all related labeling and/or advertising on this website, on any other websites (including e-commerce, social networking, or search engine websites), in any other media in which you advertise, and in any retail establishments comply with each applicable provision of the FD&C Act and FDA’s implementing regulations...."
I certainly welcome and embrace links for real enforcement actions by any US regulatory agency which have used "consumer speech" against a given vendor, given the context which I previously provided. I can also respect anyone who doesn't like the prospect/posibility of restricting "consumer speech".
That's the basis of political correctness. Those who advocate it, don't want the truth to be told.
Not that much of a minority but a minority nonetheless. Education is the real 'why' from pre-school to doctorate - it's why there is the push for all to go to college (advanced propaganda) instead of trade schools where someone can actually use something to get a job - but instead.... teaching politically correct BS - emotional 'plights', while attacking reason and logic. Imagine if they taught deduction and induction and logical fallacies in Jr. High and HS. Media and Hollywood complete and maintain the original brainwash.
Do you actually still believe that government can be "fixed"?
No, not really. Actually I think it's time to take up arms and completely overthrow it, but I'm not sure that any replacement would be the slightest bit better. It would still be run by PEOPLE.
Andria
Boy, are you behind the times! Using reason and logic is a form of micro-aggression. Reason and logic were first promoted by white, male, upper and middle class Greeks and has been used ever since to attack and offend sensitive people who quite properly make judgments based entirely on their feelings.
The kinds of trade and manufacturing jobs you're advocating merely enslave people in the service of the privileged class. It's preferable for young folks to enslave themselves with massive student debt so that they can attain political enlightenment.
No, not really. Actually I think it's time to take up arms and completely overthrow it, but I'm not sure that any replacement would be the slightest bit better. It would still be run by PEOPLE.
Andria
It might start out better. Governments have a tendency to acquire more and more power as time goes on. If you and I were to compose and publish this today, some zealous U.S. Attorney might seek to indict us:
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government... Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government...
Prehistory of logic
Valid reasoning has been employed in all periods of human history. However, logic studies the principles of valid reasoning, inference and demonstration. It is probable that the idea of demonstrating a conclusion first arose in connection with geometry, which originally meant the same as "land measurement". The ancient Egyptians discovered geometry, including the formula for the volume of a truncated pyramid.
Another origin can be seen in Babylonia. Esagil-kin-apli's medical Diagnostic Handbook in the 11th century BC was based on a logical set of axioms and assumptions, while Babylonian astronomers in the 8th and 7th centuries BC employed an internal logic within their predictive planetary systems, an important contribution to the philosophy of science.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
