VW53Aland wrote:Why not? Because, this example has nothing to do with free speech. A TV station has the right to show tobacco adverts during cartoons, unless a government sets boundaries to this (for instance by allowing tobacco adverts only after 8PM) because they value the health of their people, particularly that of children. Free speech is not a synonym for advertisement. Governments can set limits as they see fit.Uan aa Boa wrote:If a TV station starting showing tobacco adverts during the cartoons that were based on blatantly false claims and designed to appeal to children then there would be nothing to stop that.
Free speech is not a synonym for advertisement, but advertisement is an example of free speech. An advertisement is when a company says something it hopes will induce you to buy its products. If that company has the same free speech rights as an individual then GA #436 forbids the government from hindering that free speech (i.e. the advert) unless it falls into one of a number of specific categories. There's no provision there for restricting an advert on the grounds that it tells lies, for example. An advert could be restricted if it "constitutes a threat to health and safety" but you won't make that stick with a tobacco advert because (a) promoting behaviours associated with negative health outcomes is not the same thing as constituting a threat to health and safety (this is essentially the "yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre" clause) and(b) tobacco companies can peddle the usual bull about persuading existing smokers to change brand rather than encouraging people to start smoking.
I concede that GA #436 does have a protection of minors clause, but edited as you suggest it would absolutely establish the presumption that companies can advertise however they choose outside the scope of very specific exceptions.
No, I don't see it that way. I would just change one word and if the majority of the WA votes For this small correction, then the legislation passes. United Massachusetts has near to nothing to do with that, except that if they are a WA-member, they can vote too. For all I care, they can have the credit for this correction - I don't need it.
A resolution can't be amended, even by one word, it can only be repealed. That's just the rules. Somebody would have to submit a replacement resolution, and if that resolution was the same one except for one single word then it would be plagiarism without the explicit consent of the original author. That's the rules too.
I just think it is weird and confusing that we would create one law for when one person says something and then create a complete, different, other law for when two or more people say the same thing. It is like placing dual speed limit signs along every road, with different limits - one for when there's only a driver in the car and one for when he has passengers on board as well. It is confusing and illogic.
You haven't understood what a legal person is. It's an entity able to have rights and obligations in law. Two people in a car together don't combine to make one legal person. The driver is responsible for observing the speed limit. A demonstration is a crowd of people saying the same thing, but it's not a legal person. You couldn't enter into a contract with it, or sue it. If it trespasses on private property then every individual demonstrator is guilty of trespass but there is no collective entity that's also guilty of trespass. The demonstrators are protected by their individual right to free speech and by the WA resolution of freedom of assembly.
Thyerata wrote: However, we strenuously object to the notion that corporations have human rights (such as the right to freedom of speech) in the same way that a natural person does.
I share the sentiment, but legal persons aren't all corporations. They include the cinema that could be banned from showing films considered politically subversive, the trade union that could be prevented from acting in court on behalf of workers, and the civil rights or environmental groups speaking out against the government. Without some legislation, even though this proposal has failed, these can all be arbitrarily shut down by the government. Neither can a proposal protect not-for-profit organisation alone because corporations will simply act through not-for-profit subsidiaries. Whatever type of organisation is protected, the corporate sector can assume that form. Like it or not (and I don't), whatever rights Amnesty International has are also held by Exxon.
