I guess it depends on the nature of the consumer protection for me.
I'm OK with legislatures making consumer protection laws warning about the dangers of the use of a product (smoking may cause cancer, using a hair dryer in a bathtub may cause death, eating whoppers may make you fat). I'm not as OK with legislatures making consumer protection laws that require disclosures of alternatives to the product or service being offered. For instance, I would not be OK with California, or Bloomberg in NYC telling Burger King they have to tell customers about other restaurant chains that offer healthier alternatives to Burger King. But I'm fine with them mandating that Burger King disclose nutritional information or disclose that Whoppers can make you fat (as if people don't already know this).
The California Law feels like Burger King being told they must advise customers of other healthier alternatives offered by other restaurant chains.
The crisis pregnancy clinics are in the business of reducing abortions. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to force them to counsel patients on abortion options. As I said to Seattle Hoo, I would be OK California requiring the clinics to better disclose their mission / funding / and scope (i.e. this clinic does not offer or provide counseling on abortion services). Then if someone wants a more balanced view of their options, including abortions, they know to seek the services of another clinic.
I don't think any of this leads to consumer warning labels being deemed to violate free speech.
|
(
In response to this post by BonsackHoo)
Posted: 06/26/2018 at 6:37PM