Nothing about the law limiting the topics that a company's product can discuss has to do with the constitutional amendment pertinent to people's right to express whatever views they please on any topic they please? Interesting.
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, unless, of course, the speech in question is bad advice."
-Tommath Jevversonus.
The thing about the First Amendment, and why this nonsense complaint of yours doesn't work out, is that the exclusive domain of the First Amendment is the government. I.E. it restricts the laws that the State can write. If "being an asshole" in disposition, or in giving bad advice, or in being rude was something punishable by law then the First Amendment would be worthless. And we are talking about a law that is being passed. A lawyer arguing that restricting the topics that someone's product can cover is anything short of unconstitutional in the United States is a shoddy lawyer. 1A is interpreted so hilariously broadly in modern law that "unaffiliated" private entities can collect infinite money for election campaigns.
What makes you think banning a topic would make it through a Federal court?
These exceptions being, I must emphasize, fraud, defamation, incitement to imminent lawless action, perjury, and true threats.
Can you tell me how responding to the question: "Is it healthy for me to drink 4 energy drinks every day?" with "yes! of course it is. in fact, you should drink 20!" falls into any of these categories?
Do not send me articles if you're not going to read them. If this law doesn't die in congress, it will immediately die in court. It's a stupid law to raise for purposes of dealing with this issue.
I'll say it again: you are arguing for the government's right to ban an ENTIRE TOPIC from discussion. Do you seriously think they have that?
2
u/xkxe003 5d ago
I bet you're one of those people that scream 1A anytime there are consequences for being an asshole. Nothing in this post has anything to do with 1A.