<story><title>Tesla claims California false-advertising law violates First Amendment</title><url>https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/tesla-fights-autopilot-false-advertising-claim-with-free-speech-argument/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>codedokode</author><text>It is interesting how widely Constinution and laws can be interpreted. Why not regulate speech that criticizes the government because it causes harm, seeds distrust in government institutions and misleads voters to make the wrong choice.</text></item><item><author>pizza234</author><text>Correct, this is the part of the article expressing this concept:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Despite Tesla&amp;#x27;s free speech claim, the US and state governments can enforce laws banning deceptive practices that harm consumers. &amp;quot;Beyond the category of common-law fraud, the Supreme Court has also said that false or misleading commercial speech may be prohibited,&amp;quot; a Congressional Research Service report last year stated. &amp;quot;For constitutional purposes, commercial speech is speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction or that relates solely to the speaker&amp;#x27;s and audience&amp;#x27;s economic interests. Accordingly, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can regulate deceptive commercial speech without violating the First Amendment.&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>Akronymus</author><text>Even if it falls under free speech, which it definitely doesn&amp;#x27;t AFAICT, it&amp;#x27;d be essentially the same as allowing any food producer to just forego an ingredients list. Because surely, accurate ingredients are compelled speech and thus a free speech violation.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>andsoitis</author><text>A good starting point for understanding First Amendment constraints on government power to regulate deception is the U.S. Supreme Court&amp;#x27;s declaration of &amp;quot;common ground&amp;quot; in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.:&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas. But there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact. Neither the intentional lie nor the careless error materially advances society&amp;#x27;s interest in &amp;quot;uninhibited, robust, and wide-open&amp;quot; debate on
public issues.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;You can read more about Deception and the First Amendment in this UCLA Law Review article: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.uclalawreview.org&amp;#x2F;wp-content&amp;#x2F;uploads&amp;#x2F;2019&amp;#x2F;09&amp;#x2F;34_53UCLALRev11072005-2006.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow noreferrer&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.uclalawreview.org&amp;#x2F;wp-content&amp;#x2F;uploads&amp;#x2F;2019&amp;#x2F;09&amp;#x2F;34_...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Tesla claims California false-advertising law violates First Amendment</title><url>https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/12/tesla-fights-autopilot-false-advertising-claim-with-free-speech-argument/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>codedokode</author><text>It is interesting how widely Constinution and laws can be interpreted. Why not regulate speech that criticizes the government because it causes harm, seeds distrust in government institutions and misleads voters to make the wrong choice.</text></item><item><author>pizza234</author><text>Correct, this is the part of the article expressing this concept:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Despite Tesla&amp;#x27;s free speech claim, the US and state governments can enforce laws banning deceptive practices that harm consumers. &amp;quot;Beyond the category of common-law fraud, the Supreme Court has also said that false or misleading commercial speech may be prohibited,&amp;quot; a Congressional Research Service report last year stated. &amp;quot;For constitutional purposes, commercial speech is speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction or that relates solely to the speaker&amp;#x27;s and audience&amp;#x27;s economic interests. Accordingly, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can regulate deceptive commercial speech without violating the First Amendment.&amp;quot;</text></item><item><author>Akronymus</author><text>Even if it falls under free speech, which it definitely doesn&amp;#x27;t AFAICT, it&amp;#x27;d be essentially the same as allowing any food producer to just forego an ingredients list. Because surely, accurate ingredients are compelled speech and thus a free speech violation.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>ethanbond</author><text>&amp;gt; Why not regulate speech that criticizes the government because it causes harm, seeds distrust in government institutions and misleads voters to make the wrong choice.&lt;p&gt;The answer is extremely, extremely simple actually: because the outcome of that would be bad, while the outcome of controlling misleading advertising is good.&lt;p&gt;It really is that simple.</text></comment>