- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: RFKjr Announces Plans for Pharma TV Commercial Ban
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:05 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:.
What do you call attacking the 1st Amendment and regulating speech?
When Pharma companies make a product and advertise to sell that product to people who work and earn the money to buy that product, I call it commerce.
When Pharma companies make a product and then work the system so that I have to work and earn money so that OTHERS can get their product for nothing, I call that theft.
Stop that second thing, and I’m fine with advertising.
1
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:06 am to VoxDawg
I like the idea, but would this hold up in court?
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:06 am to Flats
quote:
The principle already exists, the drugs are already regulated out the wazoo (not well, but they are regulated), and I'm having a difficult time finding the harm
That's a different sort of regulation than the 1A, just FWIW.
quote:
By definition (and more government regulation) consumers can't even buy these directly, so what is the point of advertising?
That's more of a market-based question than a legal one.
quote:
Oddly enough I don't use those when evaluating something.
I didn't say you did. I just used that as an example of "the best they can do"
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:07 am to SlowFlowPro
Are you really shilling for big pharma's rights to free speech?
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's a different sort of regulation than the 1A, just FWIW.
I didn't realize that, thank you for pointing it out.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:08 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
only a fat basement dweller like you would consider not marketing potentially dangerous,
Everything is "potentially dangerous". Again, I'll use an old-school example before this board went Leftist and cite the dangerousness of water.
quote:
"tyranny".
It's an attack on the 1st Amendment. I thought tyranny was adequate but we can use whatever descriptor you want for attacking our fundamental rights.
quote:
and what a wildly convenient and loose interpretation the left is suddenly and magically taking on free speech. It fun to watch.
I am not "the left" no matter how many times you incorrectly allege it.
This post was edited on 3/24/25 at 9:09 am
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:08 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
I'll let you know when I see something like that happen.
See OP then respond
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:09 am to VoxDawg
Are beer and liquor commercials next?
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:10 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
He didnt give 2 shits about speech when they were banning conservatives from the socials,
Not a free speech issue. That's a contractual issue between 2 private parties (the consumer and social media company)
quote:
fricking with their tax filings
What are you referencing?
quote:
and flagging them at the FBI.
You have to cite specific examples and my responses to this.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:15 am to OccamsStubble
quote:
When Pharma companies make a product and advertise to sell that product to people who work and earn the money to buy that product, I call it commerce.
Commercial speech is protected under the 1A
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:16 am to cajunangelle
quote:
Are you really shilling for big pharma's rights to free speech?
The same as I would other groups I don't personally like, like Nazis, Leftists, and Scientologists.
This isn't a "team" issue.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It's an attack on the 1st Amendment. I thought tyranny was adequate but we can use whatever descriptor you want for attacking our fundamental rights.
TV advertising is already heavily regulated, There are many products/services which either cannot advertise on TV, or their message or verbiage is heavily restricted.
I personally don't care if they advertise free heroin outlets, but to argue that THIS is a bridge too far is a bit silly.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:17 am to VoxDawg
More worthless populism.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:20 am to ATrillionaire
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.
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.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:24 am to weptiger
quote:
made up product names.
GLOWSERVIA
Do you sometimes feel sad or depressed? Is your life not perfect in every way? Ask your doctor if Glowservia is right for you.
(Gay couple walking and holding hands in a field of blooming flowers while a disclaimer is read quickly in the background "may cause headaches, genital warts, anal leakage, suicidal thoughts and dry mouth")
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:24 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
but to argue that THIS is a bridge too far is a bit silly.
Well there hasn't even been a legitimate justification. As I told flats, the lack of sincerity is displayed in their silly talking points.
They've had to manufacture this into something illegal (bribes) and then market it as a way to attack the perceived opposition (removing ad dollars from MSM). No actual argument to even do this.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:27 am to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Hell, I thought the left wanted to get big corporate money out of politics.
Its going to be fun watching libs try to argue against this.
No idea what the left wants. This maybe in the interest of society or maybe not but it's not a small government free speech position.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:28 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Not a free speech issue. That's a contractual issue between 2 private parties (the consumer and social media company)
That would be correct if the government wasn't involved.
But they frequently were.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:28 am to SlowFlowPro
Television stations and the pharmaceutical industry are both extremely heavily regulated. They both require all kinds of government licenses, approvals, oversight, etc. There are cabinet level boards to oversee both.
I'm fine with getting rid of all of it, but adding an additional restriction between two industries with hundreds of restrictions just doesn't rise to the First Amendment level to me.
I'm fine with getting rid of all of it, but adding an additional restriction between two industries with hundreds of restrictions just doesn't rise to the First Amendment level to me.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:29 am to SixthAndBarone
quote:
Give me freedom. The commercials are annoying but I want less government regulations.
I sort of agree, but the only real way to stop some of this corporatocracy would be to ban 100% any/all lobbying for pharma. However, Congress will NEVER allow this to happen. This seems like the closest thing. Yes, it's intrusive, but i think it would result in a net good.
I don't like any private industry being treated differently, except, if that industry is so heavily tied together with government, which pharma/health is.
Page 7 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News