zehydra said:
but who's to say what's false? By what method is the government to determine the truth or falsity of a statement? Would every bit of false information have to go through something like a court process?
The reason you can't say "Fire!" in a cinema, is because it disrupts people from watching the movie, which is bad for business. The Cinema puts in that rule in order to prevent loss of business. However, this isn't a restriction of freedom of speech, because its the Cinema enforcing this rule, not the government.
Well, no, not really.
The reason you can't say "Fire!" in a cinema (assuming there is no fire, of course) is because it would needlessly cause a hasty evacuation of a crowded building, during which people could get hurt, it would result in emergency services reporting to the scene, possibly diverting their attention from actual emergencies,
and also would be needlessly harming the cinema's business.
In this case, PETA is harming consumers because it's blaming meat consumption for obesity, when the consumption of refined sugars and processed grains is a bigger part of the obesity problem. If you ate lots of Twinkies, snack chips, and white bread, you would still get fat; eating meat is not the only cause of the obesity problem.
And to what end is PETA promoting this incorrect viewpoint?
At the end of the day, PETA isn't interested in your health. They're interested in the well-being of animals, and you can go 'eff yourself as far as PETA is concerned. This is why governments are censoring these false advertisements.
It's not wrong to be concerned about the ethical treatment of animals, but lying to people is not the way to achieve that goal. If anything, this kind of stuff galvanizes the average person
AGAINST PETA, and why not? If they're going to skew the facts to promote their own agenda, we shouldn't be rewarding them with our attention.