how is the first ammendment violated if fast food places end up being required by law to post nutrition facts?
i read that by forcing the fast food places to post nutrition facts for all of their food, their first ammendment rights are being violated. how does that make sence? what part of the first ammendment is being violated?
This is the sort of argument that advocates will throw around to cloud an issue, but no, it doesn't make any sense. It may arguably be over-regulation to force fast food chain to post this info, but it isn't a free speech issue.
November 30 2008 08:49 am | food nutrition facts
November 30th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
it is not in any way
References :
November 30th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
That's stupid. Just list the nutrition facts already… I guess, infringing on the way they run their business? I don't know. That's ridiculous.
References :
November 30th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
This is the sort of argument that advocates will throw around to cloud an issue, but no, it doesn't make any sense. It may arguably be over-regulation to force fast food chain to post this info, but it isn't a free speech issue.
References :
November 30th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
The other option is secret corporations.
References :
November 30th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
no clue but they wanted to ban fay peaple from places
References :
November 30th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
The author of what you read obviously hasn't actually read the bill of rights.
Amendment 1 - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A law requiring "speech", as in requiring notices to be made, is very nearly the opposite of "abridging the freedom of speech". Of course, if Ronald McDonald thinks otherwise, the first amendment gives him the right to petition the government for a redress of his grievance.
References :
November 30th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
It's not, if manufactures of prepared food are required to do so why shouldn't restaurants? It's just their corporate lawyers trying to muddy the waters.
I doubt it would make much difference in the long run anyways, most of the people who frequent fast food joints don't really care that much about what they're putting into their bodies.
References :