blowfishhootie wrote:yurell wrote:Hang on, that doesn't sound right. I was under the impression that it's the ACCC (not the government)
The ACCC is an agency of the Australian government. Did you think it was a private company issuing fines or something?
It's independent thereof, though. The government doesn't get to decide whether something is false; Gillard can't just walk in and say 'I've decided this claim is false; fine them!' It's an independently run organisation whose job it is to protect consumers from producers.
blowfishhootie wrote:I wrote: "If corporate lying is a serious issue in this area, it should be prosecuted, but in courts, not by some arbitrary executive panel." I really have no idea how I can be any clearer than that.
I'm sorry, isn't that how the ACCC works? If a company disagrees with the ruling of the ACCC they can appeal the matter to the Australian Competition Tribunal.
blowfishhootie wrote:I just thought the post I responded to was even more of a ridiculous mischaracterization of the author's argument than your post was of mine, so I said something.
If I 'mischaracterised' your argument, then I apologise; your statement about the government 'arbitrarily deciding the truth' must have been a complete non sequitur then (and one that I addressed because it was the most patently ridiculous statement there, insinuating that the these laws allow the government to do that). And I don't think I'm mischaracterising that badly, since the very next paragraph began with "[it] can only be considered lying, in my opinion if all parties involved agree on what the truth is, or at least agree to operate by the same definition of the truth". Does that mean the "drug makes you immortal" people shouldn't be charged if they don't agree with what the truth is?