[simonh]

The basic principle is that free speech does not include the right to incite or conspire to commit a crime. Misleading commercial statements falls under that principle, while political opinions generally don't, again as long as they're not e.g. a conspiracy to break the law.

There have been some notable lapses in applying this principle in US history though.

[noxer]

The issue is that you can not make a law/regulation that says statement X about products Y is not allowed because its wrong/misleading. A court has to decide if it is wrong/misleading AFTER the fact and someone sued.

30 Years ago any statement about any modern vehicle feature would have been misleading no one had to preemptively make them illegal. Such "laws" should simply not exists.

[simonh]

>The issue is that you can not make a law/regulation that says statement X about products Y is not allowed because its wrong/misleading. A court has to decide if it is wrong/misleading AFTER the fact and someone sued.

Yes you can, and they have. You might like regulations to work that way, but they don't. The government has appointed agencies to determine what is wrong or misleading, and the authority of those agencies has been backed up by the courts.

Individuals and companies that disagree with specific ruling by agencies do have the right to go to court of course, and have done so.

[noxer]

You seem to have trouble understanding. No one questioned that such stupid laws do in fact exists. I was explaining why they _should_ not.