Northeast Assembly Thread

[Napoleon]

Rather than including unnecessary examples of hypothetical situations in legislation, perhaps you can provide examples of these false advertisements that require our urgent attention?

I just find this to be wholly unnecessary and opening the door for a bunch of legal complications that serve no beneficial purpose to the consumer.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Rather than including unnecessary examples of hypothetical situations in legislation, perhaps you can provide examples of these false advertisements that require our urgent attention?

I just find this to be wholly unnecessary and opening the door for a bunch of legal complications that serve no beneficial purpose to the consumer.

No beneficial purpose to the consumer? They're going to be able to feel safer when buying a product that they saw on TV, that's a benifit if you ask me. As for your point about legal complications, I can't make a rational rebuttal statement to that, but I personally think it is necessary for us to attempt to provide specific laws in the game of advertisement.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     If a non-Northeasterner may interject, section 3 seems to me to be possibly mandating double jeopardy. The way it reads, it sounds like it's saying that if a corporation is found guilty of false advertising a third time, they will immediately be put on trial again. Make of that what you will.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

     If a non-Northeasterner may interject, section 3 seems to me to be possibly mandating double jeopardy. The way it reads, it sounds like it's saying that if a corporation is found guilty of false advertising a third time, they will immediately be put on trial again. Make of that what you will.

The intention of section three was to say that, if a company is found guilty a third time of false advertisement, a trial shall be conducted in which they will be banned from advertising for 15 months if found guilty, as well as be fined $15,000. So to recap, if found guilty of false advertisement by the Northeast Government twice, a company will have fines levied against them, but if found guilty a third time, there will be a trial in which in the event of a company being found guilty by said court, they will not be allowed to release a TV, Radio, etc. advertisement as well as be fined $15,000.

[Napoleon]

Rather than including unnecessary examples of hypothetical situations in legislation, perhaps you can provide examples of these false advertisements that require our urgent attention?

I just find this to be wholly unnecessary and opening the door for a bunch of legal complications that serve no beneficial purpose to the consumer.

No beneficial purpose to the consumer? They're going to be able to feel safer when buying a product that they saw on TV, that's a benifit if you ask me. As for your point about legal complications, I can't make a rational rebuttal statement to that, but I personally think it is necessary for us to attempt to provide specific laws in the game of advertisement.

Let me clarify. Do you have any examples of a product being advertised falsely that hasn't been rectified by the market?

I will be voting no on this bill in any form unless it is modified substantially.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Rather than including unnecessary examples of hypothetical situations in legislation, perhaps you can provide examples of these false advertisements that require our urgent attention?

I just find this to be wholly unnecessary and opening the door for a bunch of legal complications that serve no beneficial purpose to the consumer.

No beneficial purpose to the consumer? They're going to be able to feel safer when buying a product that they saw on TV, that's a benifit if you ask me. As for your point about legal complications, I can't make a rational rebuttal statement to that, but I personally think it is necessary for us to attempt to provide specific laws in the game of advertisement.

Let me clarify. Do you have any examples of a product being advertised falsely that hasn't been rectified by the market?

I will be voting no on this bill in any form unless it is modified substantially.

I have seen very poor reviews of the Shamwow. In every video I watched, review I read and demonstration I did, it dripped after "absorbing the liquid (sometimes not even absorbing all the liquid.) it would drip (which it was not supposed to do.) I have seen countless products be falsely advertised without rectification. But as for the actual intent of the bill, there have been cribs recalled for having lead in them (which means inspection was not done right.) as well as electronics short circuiting and many, many other examples. The purpose of this bill is to make sure inspection is done right and products are rightfully advertised so there is no need for a refund. One shouldn't just demand a refund if their child dies in an unsafe crib. They should hold the crib's manufacturer responsible.

[Napoleon]

Why not tighten the inspection process in that case? That seems to be where your problem lies, not the advertising.

Seeing videos of ShamWows not working apparently was enough to make sure you didn't spend your money on one, if the information is that free and available I can't feel sorry for someone who buys ShamWows and gets disappointed, nor is it my business to determine whether a product is quality or not. It's not like there aren't other towels available.

Most of the examples you are citing have little to do with advertising, and even if they did, the penalties you propose aren't enough to make an impact. This bill should be withdrawn.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Why not tighten the inspection process in that case? That seems to be where your problem lies, not the advertising.

Seeing videos of ShamWows not working apparently was enough to make sure you didn't spend your money on one, if the information is that free and available I can't feel sorry for someone who buys ShamWows and gets disappointed, nor is it my business to determine whether a product is quality or not. It's not like there aren't other towels available.

Most of the examples you are citing have little to do with advertising, and even if they did, the penalties you propose aren't enough to make an impact. This bill should be withdrawn.

*sigh* At this point, I'm fighting a battle I know I'll lose.


I withdraw the Corporate Accountability Act of 2011

[tpfkaw]

Okay, I'll begin debate on the next piece of legislation at a more reasonable hour, although I'll forewarn JM that partial-birth abortion is already banned in the Northeast.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Okay, I'll begin debate on the next piece of legislation at a more reasonable hour, although I'll forewarn JM that partial-birth abortion is already banned in the Northeast.

Oh, is it? The wiki isn't updated :/ alright, I withdraw that one too. I guess we'll move on to the Death Penalty Abolition act.

[tpfkaw]

Okay, I'll begin debate on the next piece of legislation at a more reasonable hour, although I'll forewarn JM that partial-birth abortion is already banned in the Northeast.

Oh, is it? The wiki isn't updated :/ alright, I withdraw that one too. I guess we'll move on to the Death Penalty Abolition act.

IIRC this was very early on in the history of the NE region.  Ask Dallas about it.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Okay, I'll begin debate on the next piece of legislation at a more reasonable hour, although I'll forewarn JM that partial-birth abortion is already banned in the Northeast.

Oh, is it? The wiki isn't updated :/ alright, I withdraw that one too. I guess we'll move on to the Death Penalty Abolition act.

IIRC this was very early on in the history of the NE region.  Ask Dallas about it.

I'm going to check the wiki again.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Ah yes.

[Free Palestine]

Meh

[tpfkaw]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Rep. Jake Matthews

The question is whether the bill should be considered?

The ayes have it.

Debate shall continue until March 14, 2011, 6:39 PM ESR, unless debate is extended or shortened in accordance with the SOAP.

The sponsor, Jake Matthews, has the floor.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Fellow Northeasterners,

I believe it is high time we stop using torture and killing as a means of promoting so-called "justice". Here is an excerpt from the new Northeast Constitution, ratified in February of 2006:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I believe this passage applies to the lives of criminals just as much as it would apply to the life of a non-criminal. A criminal is still a person, with inalienable rights. We as a region must take a leap forward an abolish this archaic practice once and for all. Thank you.

[Napoleon]

Are we really going to refer to them as criminals?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Are we really going to refer to them as criminals?

If a person is arrested for a crime and is convicted, then yes, they are a criminal.

[Napoleon]

Are we really going to refer to them as criminals?

If a person is arrested for a crime and is convicted, then yes, they are a criminal.

5) Furthermore, criminals shall have the right to remain silent when arrested, as well as rights to personal property that shall not be searched without a search warrant signed by a licensed law official.

6) Criminals shall also have the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

7) A criminal shall keep these inaliable rights under any circumstance.

All of this seems to be before any kind of conviction takes place.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Are we really going to refer to them as criminals?

If a person is arrested for a crime and is convicted, then yes, they are a criminal.

5) Furthermore, criminals shall have the right to remain silent when arrested, as well as rights to personal property that shall not be searched without a search warrant signed by a licensed law official.

6) Criminals shall also have the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

7) A criminal shall keep these inaliable rights under any circumstance.

All of this seems to be before any kind of conviction takes place.

Okay, I'll amend the bill.

5) Furthermore, a person accused of a crime shall have the right to remain silent when arrested, as well as rights to personal property that shall not be searched without a search warrant signed by a licensed law official.

6) A person accused of a crime shall also have the right to be innocent until proven guilty.

7) A person accused of a crime shall keep these inaliable rights under any circumstance.

[tpfkaw]

I believe the word you're looking for is "inalienable."

I also have a fair bit of trepidation about provisions 3 thru 9, for the reason that it would seem to imply that those rights are not inherently contained within the Atlasian constitution, but instead must be granted by this assembly.  That would also imply that those rights could be rescinded by repealing this bill.

[Sbane]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do we not have protection against cruel and unusual punishments in our constitution? If not then disregard my striking out provisions 3 and 4. Or else those provisions are unnecessary.
 Regardless of what is in the constitution, we should change “criminal” to “suspect” for this bill.

Edit: Wormy is right, all the provisions from 3 to 9 I would think are already in the constitution. And if not, we should pass a constitutional amendment guaranteeing those rights, not a repealable act of the Assmebly. And I see you already changed the wording for "Criminal" so you can disregard that.

[Napoleon]

Section 9 reads like something that would be frequently abused by authorities.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Section 9 reads like something that would be frequently abused by authorities.

wouldn't said abuse lead to a discharge of an officer though?