Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> writes:
On Sun, Jun 08, 1997 at 08:42:49AM -0500, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote:
"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com> writes:
In <199706071754.MAA01524@manifold.algebra.com>, on 06/07/97 at 12:54 PM, ichudov@Algebra.COM (Igor Chudov @ home) said:
There is a lot of commercial compelled speech. For example, mutual funds must say that past performance is not a guarantee of future results.
Do you find this kind of compelled speech unconstitutional?
Well I don't know how Duncan feels about it but I think it's highly unconstutional.
I can still publish a book and claim that borshch (Russian beet soup) cures cancer. However if I also offer to sell beets my mail order, the FDA can bite me. It's "constitutional" because it protects the olygopoly of the large drug companies with political connections.
Drug regulation muddies the waters quite a bit -- the issue is commercial speech in general. And that issue is a more basic one -- some entity (the government, in this case) is designated as the "enforcer of contracts". Contracts are special documents that by
Actually, in the European legal tradition, a prince/potentate only assumed the responsibility to enforce a contract if that was explicitly specified when the contract was entered, and often required a separate fee. (Similarly, treaties between sovereigns called on various deities to rnforce the contract.) In Russia during the Mongol times two folks could enter a contract and choose to have the prince of Kiev, or Vladimir, or Novgorod, or some other enforce it, and pay that prince a fee. Then one of the parties could sue in that prince's court. A curious system developed by the time the Russian gumbint got centralized around Moscow - tsar's court sold special stamped paper which could be used for contracts, promissory notes, etc. For a contract to be enforceable, it had to be written on this paper. Only those who entered contracts were paying for the upkeep of the enforcement mechanism. Note that it wasn't necessary to register the contract with the gubmint to make it enforceable (I think, this was a part of the stamp act in the colonies).
their very nature involve "enforcement". What you say in a contract binds you. What you say outside of a contract does not. What you say in a contract is, therefore, and by definition, not "free".
When a tobacco company says in an ad, "Joe Camel is cool", what kind of contractual obligations does it assume? Have you ever bought a used car, Kent? Have you seen the language in the contract that throws out whatever promises the saleguy made that are not a part of the contract? If I claim on Usenet that borshch cures cancer, who are the counterparties, and what consideration do I get? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps