Requiring a site to display what you say is a pretty high bar.
That is pretty obviously breaking the first amendment right to say what you want to say.
Doesn't mean it can't happen but legally the bar is quite high to justify that.
That is pretty obviously breaking the first amendment right to say what you want to say.
Doesn't mean it can't happen but legally the bar is quite high to justify that.
Cigarettes were forced to cover, like, 40% of their box with warnings about their ability to cause cancer, harm fertility, and impair breathing capacity.
The FDA strictly regulates what medicines, as well as unapproved medicinal products, are allowed to say on their box. Multivitamin? You can say it supports health, but not that it improves health.
General electronics? You'd better have that FCC logo on it, showing that it was tested and certified, if it has any wireless radios in it. And if you're in Europe, CE belongs on basically everything.
Fireplaces? Anything with fire? Plumbing? Power conversion? Power delivery? Better have a certification from a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL), like UL or CSA.
Why are websites of any kind unique? In principle, the government can compel speech on products.
Don't pretend that the cigarette labeling was as simple as this bill. That was an incredibly complex process that took decades.
Restricting what can be said is not the same as forcing speech. (This is in reference to your FDA comment which is a different topic)
You added more examples all of which have significant effort and legal backing to their enforcement.
Most notably most of those examples come from working with the industry to create standards for safety.
All of them were developed working with the impacted industries and had solid justifications for why the labelling requirement is needed.
Especially anything involving natural gas. If you fuck up the natural gas line going into your house that doesn't just impact you it impacts anyone within several hundred yards of your house.
Similarly electrical requirements are either the federal government giving away access to a public good (frequencies of light for exclusive use) in exchange for certain restrictions on devices or electrical things that are quite dangerous again.
Actual proven safety is different than "I decided it was harmful" and pretending that they are the same is ignorant at best.
Well, it's awfully creative of you to frame warnings, that manufacturers are forced to print, as a "restriction" of speech.
Edit: The above paragraph was expanded by 2/3s since I wrote this comment. I have no interest in responding further.
I generally agree with you, but I think that ship sailed back in the early 1900's with the push for the FDA, USDA, etc.
We now use less lead in consumer goods because of the label. I would assume other carcinogens were similarly reduced in usage to avoid the labeling requirement.
All prop 65 warnings are required only for substances that show an increase in cancer risk.
We can argue whether a higher increase in risk should be required but pretending that "increase in risk" is a lie because the naive reading assumes a higher magnitude of impact doesn't mean it isn't science based.
You are referencing untested hypothetical challenges against laws you disagree with.
Also note I didn't say the Texas law was illegal or wrong.
I said compelling speech requires a higher bar to be constitutional.
An assumption. I also didn’t say whether the 2nd amendment laws were illegal or wrong.
Don't pretend it was anything else.