backtop


Print 29 comment(s) - last by dali71.. on May 12 at 6:10 PM

The city Board of Supervisors voted in favor of a settlement on Tuesday

Sources: NBC News, SF Gate





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: First amendment rights?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2013 10:02:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How on earth does posting a sign about possible dangers violate the cell phone companies first amendment rights?


Because it's another idiotic California central planning Liberal nanny state asshat regulation that's Unconstitutional and a job killer to boot.

Imagine for a minute that you owned a McDonald's franchise and the local Government passed an ordinance that forced you to put a big sign on your door linking your food with health problems. Hello? It would impact your business!

Except in this case it's much worst, because unlike fast food, there is ZERO provable or even conceivable health risks with cell phones.

So your goddamn right forcing businesses to place warning signs about their own products is against the First Amendment.

I'm personally so tired of California getting away with bullsh#t like this. It's about time someone started slapping down their idiocy over there when it comes to the constant cancer scare-tactics.


"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson










botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki