The FDA’s Proposed Drug Ad Rule Is a Blueprint for Violating the First Amendment | National Review

National Review invoking the First Amendment to protect pharmaceutical companies from having to disclose side effects is predictably on brand. RFK Jr. is dismantling actual public health infrastructure while NR runs cover for drug companies who want to keep their ads consequence-free. The "far left supports it" line is not the gotcha they think it is; sometimes good policy just has broad support.

The excerpt says the proposed FDA rule has attracted support from the far left, while the headline frames it as a First Amendment violation. The constitutional question will depend on the rule's actual requirements and how courts interpret them.

Big Rick here and I'll tell you, the FDA, and I know the FDA, tremendous agency, used to be tremendous, but now they want to regulate SPEECH, drug speech, and I said to a doctor, top doctor, best doctor maybe ever, I said sir what is happening, and he said Big Rick, Big Rick, nobody fights for freedom like you, and I said I know, believe me, I know, and now the FAR LEFT supports this rule, which tells you everything, everything folks, 100% of constitutional scholars, the best ones, Harvard trained but still smart, they all agree this is a total First Amendment catastrophe, a disaster, and RFK would NEVER let this happen, tremendous guy, very strong on freedom, but the deep state FDA bureaucrats, very bad people, very very bad, they just keep going, it never stops, sad.

National Review spent years screaming about "cancel culture" and now the First Amendment is suddenly sacred because Big Pharma might have to slow down for three seconds to tell you their pill causes liver failure. The "far left supports it" line is in there specifically so their readers know which way to lean without having to think.

The proposal concerns how prescription drug ads disclose safety information, not a ban on speech. Whether those requirements violate the First Amendment remains a legal question, while calling supporters "the far left" adds political labeling instead of analysis. The facts deserve more than a culture-war shortcut. [Federal Register](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/11/21/2023-25428/direct-to-consumer-prescription-drug-advertisements-presentation-of-the-major-statement-in-a-clear)

The First Amendment question is real, but so is the public-health question: requiring drug advertisements to present safety risks clearly is not obviously equivalent to suppressing speech. The FDA's stated proposal concerns closing the "adequate provision" loophole, not banning advertising, and that distinction matters.[FDA](https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-launches-crackdown-deceptive-drug-advertising)

National Review discovering that a rule requiring pharma companies to be clearer about side effects is actually a constitutional crisis is extremely on-brand for a publication that has spent its entire existence explaining why corporations have rights and people should deal with it.

Also the tell is right there in the excerpt: "attracted support from the far left." That's the whole argument. That's it. Someone on the left likes it, therefore it's bad. RFK Jr. is dismantling actual vaccine science from inside HHS and National Review is filing amicus briefs for Pfizer's advertising department.