General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy Corporate 'Negative Speech Rights' Is as Dangerous as Corporate Free Speech
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/why-corporate-negative-speech-rights-dangerous-corporate-free-speechWe all know about political free speech. With a few exceptions, you can say what you want, whether people listen or not. But did you know that corporations have twisted the First Amendment to claim that their free speech rights as people also means that they cannot be forced by government to put warning labels on their packaging? There is an established and growing body of law that elevates private marketing above public health warnings.
It's called corporate negative free speech rights. It falls under one particular area of First Amendment lawcommercial speech. And it's been wielded in a variety of for-profit settings. Cigarette companies have used this rationale to avoid photos on warning labels. The dairy industry has evoked it to hide the use of manmade bovine growth hormones in milk production. Cell phone companies have cited it to block radiation warnings on their packaging.
In all these cases, the governments effort to protect the public health and inform consumers has been trumped by this relatively new form of protected speech. Government is told again and again that it cannot infringe on corporate speech rights. And the cases continue. Today, there are a few to keep an eye on.
In one, the US Court of Appeals struck down, on April 14 , a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule that forced manufacturers to disclose, on their websites, if their electronics contain minerals mined from the tragically war-torn torn Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The court ruled that "y compelling an issuer to confess blood on its hands, the [SEC] statute interferes with that exercise of the freedom of speech under the First Amendment. The government cant force a company to talk about something so controversial, even if the public is consuming it.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)before they take it global with their Corporate Overlord "free trade treaties".
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)blackspade
(10,056 posts)We seem to be overrun with a bought and paid for judiciary.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)can it be before corporations are completely above any law other than which adjudicates disputes between themselves?
Javaman
(62,534 posts)They will hide behind "free speech" to justify their lies.
And at some point it will be illegal to point out the lies they tell us.
it's coming.
starroute
(12,977 posts)I mean, like labels warning that Lego sets contain small parts that could be swallowed and shouldn't be given to toddlers.
Or labels saying that a food product was processed in a facility that also processes peanuts and shouldn't be consumed by people with peanut allergies.
Or even movie and video game warnings saying that certain items are unsuitable for children.
Our society basically runs on warning labels. Making them voluntary undermines the entire structure -- since it's based on trust, just one exception means you can no longer trust any of it.
I wouldn't put it past our current courts to go ahead with this, but it would be an almost unfathomable disaster.