TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Tesla claims California false-advertising law violates First Amendment

108 点作者 thg超过 1 年前

24 条评论

Akronymus超过 1 年前
Even if it falls under free speech, which it definitely doesn't AFAICT, it'd be essentially the same as allowing any food producer to just forego an ingredients list. Because surely, accurate ingredients are compelled speech and thus a free speech violation.
评论 #38626549 未加载
评论 #38626386 未加载
评论 #38628637 未加载
评论 #38626851 未加载
figassis超过 1 年前
&gt; The agency argued that a Tesla disclaimer, which says the &quot;features require active driver supervision and do not make the vehicle autonomous,&quot; is not enough to make the advertising truthful. The &quot;disclaimer contradicts the original untrue or misleading labels and claims, which is misleading, and does not cure the violation,&quot; the DMV said.<p>Is this not the same as saying the fine print does not override marketing claims? Does that not apply to all the cases of sneaky clauses hidden in the TOS by most businesses? Especially wrt privacy and selling data, etc?
评论 #38626592 未加载
kjksf超过 1 年前
This is a bad game of telephone where people discussing what they think Tesla lawyers said but not what they really said.<p>1. Tesla lawyers are not claiming that whatever Tesla said is fine because first amendment.<p>2. They are claiming that the laws DMV is using to go after tesla is invalid under first amendment.<p>Hopefully you can see the difference and see that everyone here argues 1. but not the 2.<p>The article is pretty clear so draw your conclusion about the state of online discourse.
评论 #38627485 未加载
评论 #38627920 未加载
评论 #38628759 未加载
评论 #38627900 未加载
numpad0超过 1 年前
OT, but there are three Tesla stories on the top page right now. This is advertising.
评论 #38626666 未加载
评论 #38627036 未加载
DannyBee超过 1 年前
The limits of this kind of commercial speech are very well settled.<p>Misleading commercial speech has no first amendment protection.<p>Tesla is just trying to generate news
评论 #38627101 未加载
评论 #38627699 未加载
评论 #38627219 未加载
bell-cot超过 1 年前
Daydream: California makes it legal to claim &quot;First Amendment!&quot; when making false statements <i>to</i> Tesla. Including statements made in contracts, employment agreements, etc.
adql超过 1 年前
Can we stop treating corporations as people?
评论 #38627005 未加载
jsight超过 1 年前
I often defend autopilot&#x27;s use with real drivers. I&#x27;ve driven with it extensively and have seen how other people actually use the system. There are abuses, but no more than I&#x27;ve seen with other systems. And none of them have been fooled into thinking that it is autonomous when it is not.<p>I&#x27;ve even defended the name Autopilot, since we&#x27;ve accepted names like &quot;ProPILOT&quot; which are no different in my mind.<p>Having said that, Tesla&#x27;s phrasing for FSD is awful, and horribly misleading. I see the effects of this among non-owners all of the time. They really do think the system is fully self driving, when it is not.<p>The company should be forced to stop this practice. It is deliberately deceptive.
aa_is_op超过 1 年前
This case together with Meta&#x27;s case that the FTC is unconstitutional shows a concerted effort from US big tech to do away with any type of US consumer protections. Truly, a country where corporations have more rights than its citizens.
cryptos超过 1 年前
Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
评论 #38627233 未加载
ceejayoz超过 1 年前
Previously discussed yesterday: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=38611432">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=38611432</a>
mrob超过 1 年前
The obvious solution is to permit corporations the same free speech as natural persons, but revoke their limited liability protections if they tell lies. AFAIK there&#x27;s no constitutional requirement to let natural persons escape the harm they do by blaming it on a fictitious person. Limited liability is a privilege.
matt3210超过 1 年前
A company is not a person
评论 #38627099 未加载
dwighttk超过 1 年前
I’m guessing you have to be a true believer to be a Tesla lawyer, but I wonder what the paralegals think
评论 #38626612 未加载
评论 #38626938 未加载
评论 #38626550 未加载
评论 #38626773 未加载
评论 #38626527 未加载
INTPenis超过 1 年前
So defrauding someone is free speech? This is a hollow argument. Consumer rights should come first in any scenario because consumers are the vast majority.<p>The fact that this is even up for debate shows how much power corporations have in the US.
fooker超过 1 年前
Is this Tesla admitting they are guilty of false advertising?
评论 #38628423 未加载
mavhc超过 1 年前
Have they defined what autonomous means?
评论 #38627361 未加载
jmyeet超过 1 年前
As always, there&#x27;s no principle involved here. This is just neoliberalism run amok. Deregulation and privatization aren&#x27;t lofty goals or even efficient. They&#x27;re simply mechanisms for wealth transfer from the poor to the wealthy, either directly or via the government.<p>Legally, this is a silly argument that will go nowhere. After all, isn&#x27;t defamation just &quot;free speech&quot;?<p>This is just <i>vice signaling</i>. It&#x27;s like virtue signaling but instead you&#x27;re demonstrating your bad character.
__m超过 1 年前
This has to be an onion article
dboreham超过 1 年前
The Big Lebouski defense.
pelasaco超过 1 年前
Then in the end is just some retaliation against Musk to make possible US to spy on twitter
kibwen超过 1 年前
Not two seconds ago I just watched Elon Musk break into my house, steal the copper out of my walls, kick my dog, and piss on the ashes of my dead grandma. Fortunately, libel is legal now because idiots continue not to understand how the first amendment works.
评论 #38626569 未加载
评论 #38626457 未加载
评论 #38627080 未加载
评论 #38626886 未加载
helf超过 1 年前
The fact companies in the US have &quot;personhood&quot; is a huge fucking problem with this damn country.
tibbydudeza超过 1 年前
Elon being Elon again - has he paid the Twitter folks and office rentals yet ???.