Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Although the author brings up some valid points, he fails to point out that the individual has the power to 1) turn off the accursed TV, and 2) hit the delete key. However, this assumes an educated populace that isn't seduced by the siren songs of mega-corporate America and Madison Avenue.

Fire away.

1 posted on 05/12/2002 6:18:12 AM PDT by SBeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: SBeck
Fire one.

They have a right to speak. They have no right to be heard.

Fire two.

Their right to disseminate ends at the point it requires

for their pronouncements.
2 posted on 05/12/2002 6:38:31 AM PDT by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SBeck
"Last month, by a 5-to-4 vote, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law barring pharmacies from advertising "mixed to order" drugs, pharmaceuticals that have not gone through the usual safety screening. The largely conservative majority was more concerned about pharmacies' right to market these products than the government's interest in protecting the public from drugs that, as the dissenters noted, "can, for some patients, mean infection, serious side effects or even death.""

I guess only those medications sold by large pharmaceutical companies and "blessed" by the FDA should be sold. As long as the formulation is prescribed by the physician, and made up by a licensed pharmacist from materials of certified purity, why SHOULDN'T they be available, and advertised as such.

Full disclosure--I take a "compounded medicine", because it isn't AVAILABLE from the big pharmaceutical companies. It does its job nicely, thank you.

3 posted on 05/12/2002 6:38:50 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SBeck
Hmmm spam never bothered me that much telemarketers on the other hand...
15 posted on 05/12/2002 10:17:29 AM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: SBeck
If other courts push corporate free speech to this illogical limit, laws against spam e-mail may suffer the same fate, as judges elevate the right to send e-mail ads for get-rich-quick schemes and Internet pornography sites to a constitutional imperative.

If a person repeatedly telephoned me and said the things that they say on spam email for internet pornography sites, they'd be jailed. Why should it be okay to say these things to me in email?

-PJ

22 posted on 05/12/2002 11:10:23 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson