• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

9th Circuit Court Blocks San Francisco Warning On Soda Ads

applecorped

Banned
applecorped
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
20,145
applecorped said:
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2019/01/31/sf-soda-ad-warning-labels-blocked-9th-circuit-court/


A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked a San Francisco law requiring health warnings on advertisements for soda and other sugary drinks in a victory for beverage and retail groups that sued to block the ordinance.

The law violates constitutionally protected commercial speech, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in a unanimous ruling.
Click to expand...

not sure I understand. wouldn't this apply to things like cigarettes also?
 
I'm sure it's fine. The well funded US public education system makes such warnings unnecessary surely?
 
As far as I can see the ruling is based on legality, not morality, and relates to what's written in your First Amendment.

As an aside, I've seen no evidence that textual warnings make any difference to sugary drink consumption. Indeed, the studies show this. Graphics warnings make a slight difference but I'm pretty sure that a graphic warning can't be legally enforced on an ad over a textual one.
 
Large sodas ban - denied, warnings on labels - denied, straws banned - success!!

One out of three ain't bad I guess
 
baron said:
As far as I can see the ruling is based on legality, not morality, and relates to what's written in your First Amendment.

As an aside, I've seen no evidence that textual warnings make any difference to sugary drink consumption.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, adding a warning doesn't infringe on your ability to put anything else on there.
 
Whip said:
not sure I understand. wouldn't this apply to things like cigarettes also?
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't.

The way rights work in the US is essentially that the are upheld, except in specific cases where an exception is made. A case for making an exception must be made in court, and must convince a jury/judge that the exception is warranted in a specific case.

The ruling that cigarette warnings are an exception does not create a blanket exception for all such warnings on any other products. Similarly, the ruling that no exception is justified in the specific case of soda warnings, in no way invalidates the court-recognized exception in the specific case of cigarette warnings.

It helps if you recognize that
a) individual rights are important to uphold as a basic principle of healthy society;
b) making exceptions to that principle are necessary from time to time
c) having a defined process and threshold for making such exceptions is also very important

Once you recognize those basic points, you can start thinking about what rights you wish to uphold, under what circumstances you'd want to make exceptions, and what kind of process you'd want for making those exceptions.

Then you can compare the product of your thinking on the subject to how your society actually applies these ideas in practice. You can look at the specific exceptions contemplated for cigarettes and soda, and reason for yourself about whether they make sense, and whether they're consistent with your own ideals about how such exceptions should be made.
 
Belz... said:
On the other hand, adding a warning doesn't infringe on your ability to put anything else on there.
Click to expand...

It does, actually. There's a finite amount of space on the packaging. Every message you put on there necessarily incurs an opportunity cost of all the other messages you could put in that space.

And of course it infringes on your right to put no message there at all, if you want.

And of course it infringes on your right to choose for yourself what messages to put there.

And of course it infringes on your right to not put messages detrimental to your brand on there.
 
theprestige said:
It does, actually. There's a finite amount of space on the packaging. Every message you put on there necessarily incurs an opportunity cost of all the other messages you could put in that space.

And of course it infringes on your right to put no message there at all, if you want.

And of course it infringes on your right to choose for yourself what messages to put there.

And of course it infringes on your right to not put messages detrimental to your brand on there.
Click to expand...

Well aside from the fact that some infringements of rights are necessary or desirable, none of that actually counters what I said: it doesn't stop them from putting anything else in there.
 
The judges granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the ordinance from taking effect and kicked the case back to a lower court.
Click to expand...
So, I guess this is just temporary ?

The judges agreed that beverage companies were likely to suffer irreparable harm if the law went into effect because the warnings would drown out the ads’ other visual elements.
Click to expand...
Did the law require the warning to be greater than 50% of the ad space?

Any rate, it was a unanimous decision by the most overturned federal appeals court* which is generally regarded as "liberal". Which all makes me think there is something about this decision that I don't quite understand.


*probably because they hear the most cases rather than them being particularly out of sync with the SCOTUS, which is actually a good argument for adding another appeals courts and splitting up the jurisdiction of the 9th.
 
Belz... said:
Well aside from the fact that some infringements of rights are necessary or desirable,
Click to expand...
Yes, please. Let's leave that aside, since we're not actually talking about that at all right now anyway.

none of that actually counters what I said: it doesn't stop them from putting anything else in there.
Click to expand...
Actually it does: Putting in one message incurs an opportunity cost. It literally does stop them from putting any other message in there. Just like this post comes at the cost of everything else I could have done with this time and this "Submit Reply".

If you had made me write and submit this post, it would absolutely have stopped me from doing literally anything else with that time and effort. You can't just handwave opportunity costs as if they're not real.
 
As long as it is on sodas and not... like everything else it's not about "informing the citizens" or any other such garbage.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Yes, please. Let's leave that aside, since we're not actually talking about that at all right now anyway.
Click to expand...

Irony.

Actually it does: Putting in one message incurs an opportunity cost. It literally does stop them from putting any other message in there.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. It eats up some space, but not all of it. Does it have a cost? Yes. It does not PREVENT them from putting something else on the packaging.
 
Belz... said:
Irony.



No, it doesn't. It eats up some space, but not all of it. Does it have a cost? Yes. It does not PREVENT them from putting something else on the packaging.
Click to expand...

Sure it does. If they have more messaging than space, then every message they do put on crowds out another message they could have put on. Every message they are forced to put on, crowds out a message they could have chosen to put on.

Again, the space on the package is finite. There always comes a point where they are prevented from putting more messages on the package because there's no more space. When they are forced to give up some space to a message not of their choosing, that point comes sooner.

Sleeping in doesn't prevent you from getting out of bed at a later time. But it does prevent you from getting up at an earlier time.

Being imprisoned for a year doesn't prevent you from doing something entirely different the next year. But it does prevent you from doing anything else during that year.

Making this post this time doesn't prevent me from making a different post some other time. But it does prevent me from making a different post this time.

Using this space on my packaging for your message doesn't stop me from using some other space on the packaging for my message. But it does stop me from using this space for my message.
 
theprestige said:
Sure it does. If they have more messaging than space, then every message they do put on crowds out another message they could have put on.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that you're not technically right (the best kind of right!). I'm saying that the whole space isn't taken up by the warning. They've got plenty of space to put other stuff there. Sure, they have less space than without the warning, but they can still put stuff there. You seem to be arguing against a point I didn't make.
 
You can't save fools from folly even if you spell out the obvious in every possible situation. 'Nobody told me I shouldn't eat the bathroom tiles!' cannot be fixed. Even the kindest shepherd recognizes that some sheep are just going to get picked off by the wolves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom