- 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
1
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
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
It isn’t free speech when I’m forced to buy your drugs
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:35 am to Fat Bastard
Is SFP really in here arguing for Big Pharma
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:37 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Is SFP really in here arguing for Big Pharma
No. The 1st Amendment
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:37 am to OccamsStubble
quote:
It isn’t free speech when I’m forced to buy your drugs
How did a commercial force you to buy drugs?
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:39 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Is SFP really in here arguing for Big Pharma
would not surprise me. jake makes excuses for anything.
the big pharma commercials have been out of control for quite some time.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What do you call attacking the 1st Amendment and regulating speech?
Genuine question and not a gotcha....
How are regulations that outlaw the advertising of cigarettes and the drinking of beer on tv ads, not violations of free speech? What about regulations on what words can be said on tv, or nudity? What distinguishes those items in such a way as to keep them off television?
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:46 am to VoxDawg
quote:Yay, more government restrictions on the market!!!
RFKjr Announces Plans for Pharma TV Commercial Ban
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:49 am to Fat Bastard
quote:
would not surprise me. jake makes excuses for anything.
Hes tryong argue its a 1st amendement issue
Dudes so far left its unreal. But thinks hes the Polis Dersch
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:50 am to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
How are regulations that outlaw the advertising of cigarettes and the drinking of beer on tv ads, not violations of free speech? What about regulations on what words can be said on tv, or nudity? What distinguishes those items in such a way as to keep them off television?
And how are the current pharma ads that are run so heavily restricted in their message,verbiage and disclaimers they are required to run?
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:51 am to SDVTiger
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:52 am to LSURussian
There is NO market here. We can't by it. It's a bribe or extortion to the media. Call it protection money as the msm feeds on it for it's life. By a wide margin pharma is their no.1 revenue in advertising.
Question to you and Flo. Can/should the government restrict land purchases to all or some countries considering freedom of markets and regulations.
Question to you and Flo. Can/should the government restrict land purchases to all or some countries considering freedom of markets and regulations.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:55 am to SallysHuman
quote:
It is ridiculous to market product to people who can't outright buy it.
Great point. I had never thought of it that way.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:55 am to cajunangelle
quote:To what other individuals and/or groups would YOU deny the right of free speech? On what basis?
Are you really shilling for big pharma's rights to free speech?
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:56 am to wareagle7298
quote:
Lots of TV networks gonna go broke.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 9:59 am to mtntiger
quote:
It is ridiculous to market product to people who can't outright buy it.
Great point. I had never thought of it that way.
If they're advertising to people effectively their bottom line will feel that. The market will correct this behavior without government intervention if it's not effective....
The truth is that it's effective and as a result more patients are able to get their treatment via a drug here than if I only could rely on a doctor to hear about new meds from...
Posted on 3/24/25 at 10:02 am to oklahogjr
It's effective in controlling the media. Which is what the millions given to the msm is for. Favorable press.
See covid coverage for effectiveness.
See covid coverage for effectiveness.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 10:03 am to VoxDawg
Good. If it means I never have to hear to stupid fricking Jardian commercial again it can’t happen soon enough.
Posted on 3/24/25 at 10:03 am to SDVTiger
quote:
Hes tryong argue its a 1st amendement issue
How is it not?
Posted on 3/24/25 at 10:06 am to AggieHank86
quote:
To what other individuals and/or groups would YOU deny the right of free speech? On what basis?
TV advertising is already heavily restricted, from what products can be advertised, to what kind of language is allowed, to nudity, etc.
Even the current pharma ads that are allowed to be shown are heavily restricted for content, verbiage, and required disclaimers.
I am more free speech than anyone. I don't personally care if they advertise heroin. But to argue that two heavily restricted industries (TV networks and pharma) are immune to further restriction is a bit silly.
This post was edited on 3/24/25 at 10:08 am
Page 8 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News