is false advertising protected by the 1st amedment

[Don Quixote]

3 members of the 4th us district court of appeals in richmond thought so

however, the entire court is rehearing the case

how can false advertising be considered free speech?

bummer

http://news.yahoo.com/false-advertising-covered-under-free-speech-crisis-pregnancy-193406946.html

 

[USFREEDOM911]

3 members of the 4th us district court of appeals in richmond thought so

however, the entire court is rehearing the case

how can false advertising be considered free speech?

bummer

http://news.yahoo.com/false-advertising-covered-under-free-speech-crisis-pregnancy-193406946.html

It has to be legal; or else how are the Democrats going to be able to run for office, ever again?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

no

 

[Billy the Great Khan]

Yes, it is. What's the old expression? A fool and his money are soon parted?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

yes, false advertising can be protected speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

 

[Don Quixote]

Yes, it is. What's the old expression? A fool and his money are soon parted?

did you read what was being advertised?

 

[Don Quixote]

yes, false advertising can be protected speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

so you believe in caveat emptor

still it seems fraudulent

i guess that we will find out as this is likely to be appealed all the way to scotus

oh well

 

[SmarterthanYou]

so you believe in caveat emptor

still it seems fraudulent

i guess that we will find out as this is likely to be appealed all the way to scotus

oh well

caveat emptor has nothing to do with false advertising being protected speech.

caveat emptor is a very practical theory and at one time very common practice. is false advertising fraudulent? hell yes. but as i've been told numerous times, I am not the decider.

 

[Don Quixote]

caveat emptor has nothing to do with false advertising being protected speech.

caveat emptor is a very practical theory and at one time very common practice. is false advertising fraudulent? hell yes. but as i've been told numerous times, I am not the decider.

there is that

i guess that neither am i so we will lets the courts decide

perhaps scotus will decide that personal lying is protected but printed lying is not, i do not know but eventually we will find out

think of all the advertisers that 'stretch' the 'truth'

oh well

 

[SmarterthanYou]

there is that

i guess that neither am i so we will lets the courts decide

perhaps scotus will decide that personal lying is protected but printed lying is not, i do not know but eventually we will find out

think of all the advertisers that 'stretch' the 'truth'

oh well

then again, perhaps scotus will not decide that. personally, i think their ruling in the case I mentioned was crap. pepsi clearly made that offer, they should have been forced to honor it. oh well.

 

[Lowaicue]

Don' you have something like our Advertising Standards Authority?

 

[Don Quixote]

Don' you have something like our Advertising Standards Authority?

i do not know, however, i do not think so

bummer

 

[Don Quixote]

then again, perhaps scotus will not decide that. personally, i think their ruling in the case I mentioned was crap. pepsi clearly made that offer, they should have been forced to honor it. oh well.

i am not familiar with that case, however, an agreement is an agreement and should be enforced...same for an 'offer'

good night or morning, whichever

 

[Lowaicue]

i do not know, however, i do not think so

bummer

http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints/How-to-complain.aspx

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Don' you have something like our Advertising Standards Authority?

it's called the FCC

 

[Lowaicue]

it's called the FCC

Well, if that performs the same or similar function the thread's question is answered, isn't it?