(Two weeks before the FTC publicly announced its lawsuit, POM preemptively sued the FTC, claiming that preapproval of ads featuring health claims violates
the companys right to free speech.)
Not exact matches
Some
right - wing websites have already started criticizing the
company's latest move as a crackdown on
free speech, and an attempt
to enforce «politically correct» behavior.
This year's shareholder proposals filed or coordinated by NCPPR ask
companies «
to protect political
free speech rights, but all those that have been challenged at the SEC have been omitted,» Proxy Preview elaborates.
If the federal and state governments come in and slap new regulations and oversight on these
companies, it's their own fault for practicing elitist arrogance in an attempt
to shape a specific narrative that damages the very fabric of a society where the first amendment
to the United States Constitution guarantees the
rights of
free expression and
free speech.
Yes, the BP site is infuriating when you consider it in context of the
company's overall attempts
to minimize the spill and dodge responsibility from the start, but from a
free speech point of view, BP has every
right to try
to put lipstick on that pig.
Teachout said she «disagrees» with Cuomo's order this month banning business with pro-BDS
companies because, «as a strong advocate for the First Amendment
right to free speech, I will stand up for the
right of any group
to share its views, even when I disagree with it.»
The lawsuit alleges that requiring the tobacco
companies to add these warnings
to their product will violate their
free speech rights; cost millions of dollars
to print; and require them
to feature anti-smoking advocacy more prominently than their own brands.
In August 2011, however, four of the five largest U.S. tobacco
companies filed a lawsuit against the federal government claiming that requiring the gnarly warnings
to accompany their product will violate their
free speech rights, cost millions of dollars
to print, and require them
to feature anti-smoking advocacy more prominently than their own brands.
On Wednesday, the FDA campaign may have died out altogether, as U.S. District Judge Richard Leon granted summary judgment in favor of five tobacco
companies who objected that the proposed warnings would violate their
free speech rights, cost millions of dollars
to print and require them
to feature anti-smoking advocacy more prominently than their own brands.