Primordial Performance raided by FDA
- 11-02-2012, 04:17 AM
- 11-02-2012, 07:26 AM
There's a few people in here that are capable of performing due diligence and who know better, but just read and remain silent. "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson. Maybe now's the time to speak up?
The question is often asked: Does the First Amendment protect advertisements? Advertising is indeed protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, advertising or "commercial speech" enjoys somewhat less First Amendment protection from governmental encroachment than other types of speech. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), for example, may regulate speech that is found to be "deceptive." And the FTC keeps stepping up the types of commercial speech it regulates. Moreover, it uses a variety of tools to do so, but that is a discussion for another article.
Under the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, No. 79-565, Supreme Court of the United States, 447 U.S. 557; 100 S. Ct. 2343; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 48; 65 L. Ed. 2d 341; 6 Media L. Rep. 1497; 34 P.U.R.4th 178, June 20, 1980, a state must justify restrictions on truthful, nonmisleading commercial speech by demonstrating that its actions "directly advance" a substantial state interest and are no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. This is the so-called Central Hudson Test.
Commercial speech now clearly has prominent place in the rights protected by the First Amendment. A 1993 Supreme Court opinion summarized the general principles underlying the protection of commercial speech:
"The commercial market place, like other spheres of our social and cultural life, provides a forum where ideas and information flourish. Some of the ideas and information are vital, some of slight worth. But the general rule is that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value of the information presented. Thus, even a communication that does no more than propose a commercial transaction is entitled to the coverage of the First Amendment." (Edenfield v. Fane, 123 L. Ed. 2d 543, 113 S. Ct. 1792, 1798 (1993).)
At one time, purely commercial advertisements were considered to be outside the First Amendment's protection. (See Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52, 54, 86 L. Ed. 1262, 62 S. Ct. 920 (1942). That case, which was overruled, said the Constitution imposes no restraint on the government as to the regulation of "purely commercial advertising".
While the U.S. Supreme Court has often acknowledged this constitutional protection, the Supreme Court's decisions have recognized the "'common sense' distinction between speech proposing a commercial transaction, which occurs in an area traditionally subject to government regulation, and other varieties of speech." (Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, 436 U.S. 447, 455-56, 56 L. Ed. 2d 444, 98 S. Ct. 1912 (1978) (citing Virginia Pharmacy Bd. v. Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 771 n.24, 48 L. Ed. 2d 346, 96 S. Ct. 1817 (1976)).
These distinctions have led the Court to conclude that "the Constitution . . . affords a lesser protection to commercial speech than to other constitutionally guaranteed expression." U.S. v. Edge Broadcasting Co., 125 L. Ed. 2d 345, 61 U.S.L.W. 4759, 4761 (1993) (citing Board of Trustees v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 477, 106 L. Ed. 2d 388, 109 S. Ct. 3028 (1989), Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Com., 447 U.S. 557, 563, 65 L. Ed. 2d 341, 100 S. Ct. 2343 (1980), and Ohralik, 436 U.S. at 456)).
In Central Hudson, the Supreme Court set out the important four-part test for assessing government restrictions on commercial speech:
"[First] . . . [the commercial speech] at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest."
This four-part analysis endured to this day as the constitutional benchmark in commercial speech cases.
In 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "the Twenty-first Amendment does not qualify the constitutional prohibition against laws abridging the freedom of speech embodied in the First Amendment. The Twenty-first Amendment, therefore, cannot save Rhode Island's ban on liquor price advertising."
Godspeed and God Bless. If anyone has any advice about getting into NJ through the interstate (as in updates, I've lived there for 22 years) or needs food/supplies or knows anyone that needs food and supplies and isn't a far stray from the interstate, PM me.Freedom means nothing here.
- 11-02-2012, 04:42 PM
Just got the going out of business email. *tear
Sent from my super duper VS920 4G using Am.com app!BLACK LION RESEARCH
Supplements for bodybuilders
11-02-2012, 06:39 PM
Still haven't heard exactly how or why this went down but I found this guy post on PP home board interesting
EMD (guys name)
FWIW, I'm a senior executive in the pharmaceutical industry, and can share that in my experience this is exactly how the FDA generally gets involved in investigations of prescription drug marketing. Someone, usually a competitor, submits questionable marketing materials and initiates the process. Or, if related to adverse events, lawyers create class action "on behalf" of patients seeking their own payouts. Proactive raids are more the stuff of the DEA. My first thought when I heard about this was "competitive tip-off."
Kind of makes you wonder who would do that
11-02-2012, 08:32 PM
11-02-2012, 09:54 PM
So a certain Factory likelyOriginally Posted by NADDANME
11-02-2012, 10:08 PM
Serious Nutrition Solution ~~
mw at seriousnutritionsolutions dot com
11-03-2012, 12:10 AM
Anywho, like I said, im not interested in debate and if you don't wish to follow the "laws of the land" then don't, and see where that gets you.
11-03-2012, 12:13 AM
11-04-2012, 07:31 AM
By no means does it strain credulity to suspect this is the result of a competitor getting in the right persons ear.
11-04-2012, 08:23 AM
Companies (and businesses in general) need to be very careful with the language they use in advertisements. I do not know the specifics obviously on the case involving PP, however, when it comes to supplement companies that might advertise in a manner that can draw attention due to overarching claims (many do this) then all bets are off.
Additionally, for the sanctity of the conversation, lets not bring up our "founding fathers", as they were just as flawed as the government officials we have in office today and just as corrupt. The fact that Jefferson was used makes my blood boil. Sorry, rant over
Controlled Labs Head Board Rep
adam @ ControlledLabs.com
CONTROLLED LABS products are produced in a GMP for Sport certified facility
Similar Forum Threads
- By UKStrength in forum Supplement LogsReplies: 89Last Post: 09-18-2009, 03:28 PM
- By Steveoph in forum NutraplanetReplies: 6Last Post: 06-03-2009, 06:30 PM
- By Maxwell600 in forum Supplement AuctionReplies: 0Last Post: 01-14-2009, 08:56 AM
- By Steveoph in forum NutraplanetReplies: 0Last Post: 10-27-2008, 01:57 PM
- By fatburner2007 in forum SupplementsReplies: 4Last Post: 12-07-2007, 08:16 PM