This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I find it difficult to believe that compelling this information from a manufacturer is not a violation of the 1st Amendment; it is compelled speech. Imagine if the same law were imposed on all manufacturers. While the big automakers have a large network of repair shops, all of which have to be given this information, imagine the same thing being required of a custom vehicle manufacturer; they'd have to hire a bunch of people to compile and write and publish such information. And it leaves open the question of how detailed it has to be. Does it have to disclose proprietary parts sources and designs? And on, and on. The above (rant) is my reaction to the article. That is, it doesn't cover what seems obvious to me are the legislation's real "objections" and I'm certain that I'm not the only one who has raised them: in other words the article is obviously biased and one-sided.75.90.39.77 (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)Reply
