Home  ›  News  ›

CTIA Turns to the Constitution to Fight SF's SAR Law

Article Comments  

all discussions

show all 12 replies

Wow.

ELawson87

Apr 2, 2011, 11:58 AM
This is an even more whacked-out interpretation of Constitutional law than some of the stuff I've read here from the anti-net neutrality people. By this reasoning, it's unconstitutional to force drug companies to list ingredients on a medicine's packaging. Absolutely ridiculous.
...
kazahani

Apr 2, 2011, 2:30 PM
It's all about interpretation. Taken literally, the first amendment does not permit any of those things, however the government has been allowed to pass "reasonable regulations" by the court system. CTIA is suing because they claim San Francisco's policy goes beyond what is considered "reasonable".
...
island-guy

Apr 2, 2011, 3:03 PM
It's like these carbon footprint scores on cars now and like the Surgeon general's warning on cigarettes. I don't know of a single instance where someone bought one phone over the other due to the lower SAR rating, which are available by the way. CTIA needs to stop trying to interpret the Constitution......
...
T Bone

Apr 3, 2011, 9:39 AM
"I don't know of a single instance where someone bought one phone over the other due to the lower SAR rating,"

So apparently you don't live in San Fran? Many people there are absolutely nuts. Keep in mind, this is the same city that outlawed the Happy Meal.


There's a ton of really ignorant anti-science people in San Francisco. Rest assured, there are tons of people there who WOULD indeed choose what phone they buy based on its SAR rating.
...
MadLib

Apr 3, 2011, 10:37 AM
T Bone said:
So apparently you don't live in San Fran? Many people there are absolutely nuts. Keep in mind, this is the same city that outlawed the Happy Meal.


Michelle would fit right in! I cannot express how angry this makes me. I mean, it's one thing to express an interest in your citizens' health and introduce health programs, but it is a whole different ball game once regulation comes into play. How dare the SF government illegalize the Happy Meal? Do they truly believe child obesity rates will decline as a result of this atrocious legislation? They are ignorant fools if they do; parents who feed their children unhealthily will do so regardless of any legislation (unless, of course,...
(continues)
...
pickles

Apr 2, 2011, 3:54 PM
i agree, but i'm not sure where i stand. i think the SF SAR law is just as ridiculous as the constitutional argument the CTIA is making. The SAR ratings of phones will just confuse consumers. A phone with a lower SAR rating isn't necessarily any safer than a phone with a higher SAR rating. As long as a phone meets the SAR standards, it's considered "safe" and any differences beyond that are negligible imo.
...
Globhead

Apr 2, 2011, 4:35 PM
It isn't just the number, it is whether the number has been proven to mean anything.

The relevance of aspirin in a tablet is established as fact. It matters how much aspirin is in a tablet for both effect and safety.

The SAR has no established functional meaning. No phones have been shown to be dangerous at all, and certainly there is no evidence that a phone with an SAR of 1.2 is less non-dangerous than a phone with an SAR of 1.5.

Thus, given that the only implied meaning of an SAR is unproven hokum, this law is requiring the sellers to speak an opinion, not a fact.
...
Azeron

Apr 2, 2011, 10:12 PM
Good to see the CTIA put their money where their mouth is and move their show out of San Fran but the SHOULD have moved it out of California altogether.
...
cellgeek82

Apr 3, 2011, 7:56 AM
I agree. What's this world coming to? The stupid stuff people cry about these days. Same thing with lawsuits. I understand if you patent something you want your rights but some of these lawsuits are very stupid. Same thing with the "separation of church and state" myth. Hmm, I don't remember reading that one in the Constitution.

People these days like to interpret the law the way they hear it and in the end it doesn't make sense. I frankly don't care if they list the SAR on the phone labels at the store. Will it keep me from buying it?...NO!
...
MadLib

Apr 3, 2011, 10:29 AM
cellgeek82 said:
Same thing with the "separation of church and state" myth. Hmm, I don't remember reading that one in the Constitution.


You have no idea how frustrated I've gotten over the general public's ignorance of the true origin and meaning of the separation of church and state. Progressives have a tendency to far over-stretch the implication of laws in order to fit their agenda. This issue with SARs is just another example of a good cause gone awry by governmental intervention.

If we the consumers wanted manufacturers to label SAR levels on phones, we would [hypothetically] demand them to, else we would boycott their products. In an ideal republic, that's how things are regulated - by the power...
(continues)
...
cellgeek82

Apr 3, 2011, 11:03 AM
Yup, it's "big brother" trying to get bigger. And some in this country are letting it. New name will soon be "big bully". 👀
...
Versed

Apr 3, 2011, 12:02 PM
First, I think the who SAR label thing is insane, second, I don't think its unconstitutional either.

Many on the right find this intrusive, and yes I feel it is too. But they don't find any problems have 3 day waits and other things which they happen to agree with. A pox on both the right and the left.
...

This forum is closed.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.

This forum is closed.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Threads Follow @phonescoop on Mastodon Phone Scoop on Facebook Follow on Instagram

 

Playwire

All content Copyright 2001-2024 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.