Koopa v. Frémont
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 09:44:25 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Koopa v. Frémont
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Koopa v. Frémont  (Read 588 times)
KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸
KoopaDaQuick
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,299
Anguilla


Political Matrix
E: -8.50, S: -5.74


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 25, 2021, 12:51:05 AM »

Greetings (and Merry Early Christmas) honorable justice,

I hereby petition this case towards the Frémont Circuit Court against the Commonwealth of Frémont as I find Frémont bill 20.04, the Plain Packaging Act, to be in violation of Section II of the Frémont Bill of Rights within the Second Regional Constitution.

Quote from: Bill of Rights, Second Constitution of the Commonwealth of Frémont
Section 2. Parliament shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, nor of the press, nor the right to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances.

Quote from: FT 20.04 – Plain Packaging Act
AN ACT
to hit the parasitic purveyors of poison to people where it hurts

Section 1 (Title)
i. The title of this act shall be, the "Plain Packaging Act."
ii. As it appears in this legislation, "retail packaging" refers to the packaging in which tobacco and vape products are presented to the consumer in a store or other venue.

Section 2 (Requirement for plain packaging)
i. No tobacco or vape products may be sold on the market except those whose retail packaging conforms to the requirements set forth herein.

Section 3 (Shape)
i. All tobacco and vape products must be packaged for sale in a box or carton made of cardboard and only of cardboard, without ridges, embossed images, or any other variation of shape or texture.
ii. Any glue or adhesive used in manufacturing must be transparent and colorless.
iii. When the box or carton is closed, each outer surface must be rectangular, and the surfaces of the packaging must meet at 90˚ angles. All edges must be straight and not rounded, bevelled, or otherwise embellished in any way.
iv. The packaging must open with a flip-top lid hinged only at the back and with straight edges. Neither the lid nor the edges of the lid may be rounded, bevelled, or otherwise embellished in any way.

Section 4 (Finish)
i. All outer and inner surfaces of the retail packaging of tobacco and vape products, as well as any lining of a box or carton, must have a matte finish and be brown in color.
(a) As it appears in this section, "brown" refers to pantone #448c.

Section 5 (Wrapper)
i. Any plastic or other wrapper must be transparent and colorless and carry no text or identifying mark.
ii. The wrapper must nor be textured or embellished in any way.

Section 6 (Text and logos)
i. No trade mark may appear anywhere on the retail packaging of tobacco and vape products.
ii. No other text or mark may appear anywhere on the retail packaging of tobacco and vape products, except as expressly provided herein.
iii. All text must be printed in white twelve-point Avenir font, except as expressly provided herein.

Section 7 (Labels)
i. The name of the product and manufacturer may appear only once on the retail packaging of tobacco products.
ii. The label must appear in the following formulation, and include no other text or other promotional symbols, messages, or marks: the type of product, and directly beneath this the manufacturer. The label must be centered in the bottom third of the side of the packaging on which it appears.
iii. Directly above the label, the packaging must display a full-color, high-resolution photograph sized to fit the perimeter of the packaging, along with a message in bolded twenty-point font. It must either display:
(a) a photograph of a diseased human lung, with the caption above, "SMOKING CAUSES LUNG CANCER"; or
(b) a photograph of rotted and discolored teeth, with the caption above, "SMOKING CAUSES MOUTH AND THROAT CANCER"; or
(c) a photograph of a child attached to a respirator, with the caption above, "DON'T LET YOUR CHILDREN BREATH SMOKE"; or
(d) some other combination of image and message mandated by the Ministry of Health and Human Services.
(e) Appropriate photographs will be selected by the Ministry of Health and Human Services.
iv. The reverse side of the packaging must carry another of the above images with the corresponding message.
v. All other sides of the packaging must display a warning provided by the Ministry of Health and Human Services; this warning must be printed in bolded black twelve-point letters on an amber #ffbf00 background.

Section 8 (Scent and noise)
i. When opened, the retail packaging of tobacco and vape products must be rigged to emit a harmless sulphuric odor and to play a recording of a shrill scream or siren lasting at least 60 seconds.
ii. No part of the retail packaging of tobacco and vape products may make any other noise, or contain or produce a scent, that could be taken to constitute tobacco advertising and promotion.

Section 9 (Effect)
i. This act shall apply to all tobacco and vape products packaged on or after October 1, 2021.


My case rests on the idea that, according to our regional constitution, parliament has no business regulating the free expression of tobacco companies and vendors in their products. While many may see tobacco companies as immoral, this does not give them any less of a right to free expression as any other party in our region. Due to this, I wish to see the right for tobacco companies to freely express themselves on their packaging to be restored.


x. Attorney Koopa Danielle Quick, MFP
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2021, 09:14:41 PM »

This has been seen. The Court appreciates your patience over these festive times of merriment.

*hughughug*,

Circuit Court Justice ilikeverin
Logged
Unconditional Surrender Truman
Harry S Truman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,142


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 28, 2021, 06:30:32 PM »

We of course ask that this case be dismissed. Governments have long had the right to regulate corporate marketing and to require the display of health information and other factual statements on consumer products. This is not a free speech issue anymore than GMO labels are a free speech issue.
Logged
KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸
KoopaDaQuick
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,299
Anguilla


Political Matrix
E: -8.50, S: -5.74


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 28, 2021, 06:44:34 PM »

We of course ask that this case be dismissed. Governments have long had the right to regulate corporate marketing and to require the display of health information and other factual statements on consumer products. This is not a free speech issue anymore than GMO labels are a free speech issue.

Disagree. Adding simple labels like "Smoking does [bad thing]" or a surgeon general's warning aren't violations of free speech as it doesn't abridge the right of manufacturers from including the slogans, trademarks, design, etc. of their choosing. I am not against including such labels on consumer products warning consumers of the risks of smoking. However, until you can find a way to include these warnings to consumers without preventing them from marketing their products using their own platforms, I still find this law to violate the Constitution.
Logged
WD
Western Democrat
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,573
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -7.35, S: -0.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 28, 2021, 06:49:59 PM »

We of course ask that this case be dismissed. Governments have long had the right to regulate corporate marketing and to require the display of health information and other factual statements on consumer products. This is not a free speech issue anymore than GMO labels are a free speech issue.

I concur, and in fact, I have just authored legislation to permit regional governments to regulate packaging on any tobacco product as they so choose.
Logged
Mr. Reactionary
blackraisin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,784
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.45, S: -3.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2021, 08:38:24 AM »

We of course ask that this case be dismissed. Governments have long had the right to regulate corporate marketing and to require the display of health information and other factual statements on consumer products. This is not a free speech issue anymore than GMO labels are a free speech issue.

It is a nullification issue however, since federal law expressly preempts this type of local regulation. Fremont is acting like a bunch of John C Calhouns flagrantly ignoring and violating federal law it dislikes. This is a fort sumter moment where clear federal authority is under attack by a treasonous region. The insurrectionists in Fremont must be stopped and this bill must be struck down as the blatantly unconstitutional bill that it is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_Labeling_and_Advertising_Act

Quote
Preemption: (a) No statement relating to smoking and health, other than the statement required by this Act, shall be required on any cigarette package.(b) No statement relating to smoking and health shall be required in the advertising of any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of this Act.

Federal statute clearly and expressly preempts state/local/regional attempts to add God knows what to tobacco labels. Under existing law tobacco labels are the exclusive purview of the federal government. This isnt even a debatable question, its clearly stated in federal law. While federal law may change in the future, at this time Fremont's illegal law is null and void on its face and must be struck down as the shameless attack on federal authority that it is.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2022, 08:57:55 PM »

The petition on the part of the petitioner is hereby dismissed. The power to regulate commercial speech falls inside the Parliament's legislative powers granted in Article I, Section 1 of the Frémont Constitution. Compelling factual disclosure of health risks accompanied by certain products, along with various packaging constraints in line with a clearly articulated government interest, has long been acknowledged as a reasonable use of legislative power.

We of course ask that this case be dismissed. Governments have long had the right to regulate corporate marketing and to require the display of health information and other factual statements on consumer products. This is not a free speech issue anymore than GMO labels are a free speech issue.

It is a nullification issue however, since federal law expressly preempts this type of local regulation. Fremont is acting like a bunch of John C Calhouns flagrantly ignoring and violating federal law it dislikes. This is a fort sumter moment where clear federal authority is under attack by a treasonous region. The insurrectionists in Fremont must be stopped and this bill must be struck down as the blatantly unconstitutional bill that it is.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cigarette_Labeling_and_Advertising_Act

Quote
Preemption: (a) No statement relating to smoking and health, other than the statement required by this Act, shall be required on any cigarette package.(b) No statement relating to smoking and health shall be required in the advertising of any cigarettes the packages of which are labeled in conformity with the provisions of this Act.

Federal statute clearly and expressly preempts state/local/regional attempts to add God knows what to tobacco labels. Under existing law tobacco labels are the exclusive purview of the federal government. This isnt even a debatable question, its clearly stated in federal law. While federal law may change in the future, at this time Fremont's illegal law is null and void on its face and must be struck down as the shameless attack on federal authority that it is.

Amicus seems to be suggesting a different case.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.218 seconds with 12 queries.