[mymac]

(1) it's not speech. (2) it's not political. (3) it is essential information for consumers that manufacturers have routinely lied about in the past. (4) it is already a compromise between what manufacturers would like and what 'the people' (you know, those pesky voters and their representatives) actually need. And finally (5) corporations already have outsized power, to carry their water to the point that you believe that documents a few hundred years old should be interpreted in the most literal way possible so that they can have even more power is not rational.

[tzs]

> (1) it's not speech

A ton of court decisions say it is in the US. Here is an article that cites a plethora of them [1]. Note: I have no idea who gfi.org is or whose agenda they are pushing or what side they are on. They just happened to have an article with a nice list of relevant cases.

[1] https://gfi.org/resource/the-first-amendment-right-to-use-cl...

[mymac]

Corporations are people, writing is speech and right is wrong. I actually don't care about what convoluted reasoning US courts use to reach their conclusions, they seem to be far more involved in seeing how they can kick the camel through the eye of the needle than with what was originally intended. Such incredibly narrow (and often narrowminded) views as well as all kinds of myopic rulings have done a lot of damage to the United States and to the world at large either by example or by osmosis.

So if you want to argue that being required to label the ingredients and other required prose on the outside of your packaging is 'speech' then you are effectively siding with the corporations against humanity. You can probably find some justification for that in your own mind but it isn't going to convince me that you have it right, no matter how many silly arguments you can find to back it up. There is such a thing as common sense and courts risk their own legacy as well as ridicule if they lose that very important element. And in the United States the supposedly independent supreme courts vote o n just about any subject that is even mildly politically tinted can be guessed with an accuracy that borders on certainty, something that should never ever happen if the court were independent.

This sort of reasoning is what got you 'the United States vs $50,000' and other elegant bits of bullshit. And don't get me started on the political nature of the US supreme court, which seems to be visible to all but a handful.