re: RFKjr Announces Plans for Pharma TV Commercial Ban

Still wondering what the answer to my questions are.

For some reason SFP and Aggie won't answer. Not a gotcha as I posted before, but odd that free speech is indeed regulated in some instances.

Why and how is that so?

quote:

---

We can buy those things

It's just PR payments from big pharma to big media. Nothing more.
Without the ads they will just have to find another way to pay them off.

It's overdue.

---

We can't buy Excedrin?

Good. Stop leveraging the media from an income source that encourages falsehoods in reporting the efficacy of drugs especially the Covid “vaccination.”

quote:

---

Still wondering what the answer to my questions are.

---

Just missed it.

Commercial speech is lower on the rung than political speech, but there are tests. This is the 4-part test.

quote:

---

Whether the commercial speech concerns a lawful activity and is not misleading

Whether the government interest asserted to justify the regulation is "substantial"

Whether the regulation "directly advances" that government interest

Whether the regulation is no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest

---

Also, the major tobacco law was prior to the Supreme Court recognizing commercial speech. I believe the big restrictions later were agreed-upon as part of the tobacco settlements.

Products associated with vices are more easily regulated due to the "government interest" aspect of the analysis. The worse a product can be described for society, the higher the government interest. This is where medication is going to face a lot of problems, because it's not a vice and it's much more difficult for the government to articulate their interest, let alone conform to the last prong limiting the extent of the need.

Just so we're all clear. Clarence Thomas thinks the distinction in levels of speech is bullshite and has advocated for a strict scrutiny standard for commercial speech, which I would be in favor of.

ETA

quote:

---

Thomas has been a staunch defender of commercial speech, arguing that truthful commercial speech should not receive less protection than other forms of noncommercial speech, such as political speech.

In a concurring opinion in 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996), Thomas wrote that the Court should abandon its ruling in Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980), which subjects restrictions on commercial speech only to intermediate scrutiny.

Thomas believed that bans on truthful commercial speech should be subject to the rigors of strict scrutiny. He wrote in an oft-quoted passage: “I do not see a philosophical or historical basis for asserting that ‘commercial’ speech is of ‘lower value’ than ‘noncommercial speech.’ Indeed, some historical materials suggest to the contrary.”

He reiterated his strong stand on commercial speech in his dissent in Glickman v. Wileman Brothers and Elliott, Inc. (1997) and in other opinions.

---

Nascar fixing to eat as they move advertising to race cars.

And probably NIL too. Gotta move those ad dollars somewhere.

quote:

---

Don't play dumb. The prescription ads.

---

Fair enough. Still, many prescription meds are elective, and consumer choice should be weighed just as much or more than doctor recommendation. While these ads can be icky, they are also informative.

quote:

---

quote: How did a commercial force you to buy drugs? quote: You know the answer to this question. You argue like a woman. Him: "What the heck did I do?" Her: "Oh, you know." Him: (baffled expression)

---

Stop playing stupid, Its a bad look.

I'm gonna miss all these mini-musicals where a bunch of overweight people show their dancing prowess. NOT!

Thanks for the reply.

Now, you are back in HS debate.

What would be your argument in favor of RFK, Jr.'s ban?