From: jay holovacs <holovacs@idt.net>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 07:13:54 +0800
To: Tim May <declan@well.com>
Subject: RE: Compelled speech was:  CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention
Message-ID: <199712042255.RAA27110@u1.farm.idt.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




==========================
   >From:    	Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
   >To:        	David Honig <honig@otc.net>; Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
   >Cc:        	"Michael Sims" <jellicle@inch.com>; fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu;cypherpunks@toad.com
   >Subject:    	Re: CDT and the Threat of Gov't Intervention
   >Date:    	Wed, Dec 3, 1997  2:56 PM
   >And even if truth can be determined, truth is not a requirement for free
   >speech. (Truth in courtrooms and in contract situations are of course
   >different situations than ordinary free speech, in speaking, writing,
   >publishing, and broadcasting.)
   >
   >(Yes, I am opposed to FDA and SEC rules on truthful speech, unless
   >contracts are involved. If Joe wants to advertise his Magic Elixir, let
   >him. Reputations and ratings services (truly free ones, that is) are the
   >key to bad speech.)

This sounds superficially equivalent, but FDA labelling requirements are quite different from web labelling. Firstly, unlike religion and politics, which are by nature subjective, effectiveness and safety of a drug can be reasonably determined by objective double blind testing. The room for error can come mainly from invalid protocols or fraud, both of which can be investigated by outside parties. 

Secondly, looking at a mislabelled web site cannot harm you. Taking a worthless drug can cost your health or your life. Unlike many consumer products, where the market can be allowed to rise or fall on reputation, it is not possible to determine the effectiveness or side effects of drugs from reputation. Only rigorous cohort selection and peer reviewed statistical analysis will suffice.
   
Additionally requiring verifiably truthful statements on drugs really does qualify as a "narrowly tailored" action. 

OTOH I don't see any reason to prohibit  people from taking "unapproved" drugs if they do so with full knowledge.

Jay