StopUMTS Logo
how to get rid of moles 
Zoeken
   
Voorlichting
12/10/17Meetspecialisten, meet
05/10/17Boeken over EMV / stralin
Artikelen
19/10/17Dramatische afname aantal
17/10/17The 5G network; What You
14/10/17Do You Really Believe You
11/10/17Elektriciteit en elekt
11/10/17Wifi- en bluetooth-knoppe
11/10/17Kinderen hebben zeven kee
Berichten Nederland
19/10/17Bilthovenaren doen beroep
19/10/17Nieuw, veiliger antennebe
17/10/17Lek in wifi: Miljoenen ap
13/10/17Aantal antenne-installati
12/10/17Aantal verkeersongevallen
Berichten België
12/10/17Vlaamse regering trekt vi
04/10/17Brussel: 5,2 miljard euro
Berichten Internationaal
20/10/17De Zwitserse pers over vo
16/10/17Frankrijk: Press relea
16/10/17SB 649 has been vetoed!!
11/10/17USA: Berkeley Cell Phone
Ervaringen | Appellen/oproepen
20/10/17Electrosensitivity: is te
09/10/17Boek met ervaringsverhale
24/09/17Lichaamspanning en ele
Onderzoeken
20/10/17Autisme ontwikkelt zich l
20/10/17Mogelijke effecten van el
16/10/17Hoofdpijn: Mobile Phone U
Veel gestelde vragen
13/05/17Vakantie? Witte zo
10/07/16Zeven veel gestelde vrage
Juridische informatie
19/10/17The precautionary princip
11/10/17Telekom warns of (its own
06/10/17Anwalt für Mobilfunkopfe
Oproepen
29/11/17Raadsmarkt ZENDMASTEN &
11/11/17Cursus ‘Straling meten
14/10/17Tip de Volkskrant
Folders
10/09/17Brochures, folders, websi
29/04/16USA: Meer dan 50 tips voo
Briefwisselingen | Archief: 2008, 2005
10/07/17Brief naar de gemeente C.
14/06/17Mail naar 'De Monitor' na
Illustraties
 Algemeen
 Fotoalbum zendmasten
 Wetenschappelijke illustraties
USA: Berkeley Cell Phone ''Right to Know'' Ordinance    
Ga naar overzicht berichten in: Berichten Internationaal

USA: Berkeley Cell Phone ''Right to Know'' Ordinance
woensdag, 11 oktober 2017 - Dossier: Internationale berichten


Bron 1: www.saferemr.com/2014/11/berkeley-cell-phone-right-to-know.html
21 april 2017


To see media coverage about the Berkeley cell phone ''right to know'' ordinance
and the CTIA's lawsuit: bit.ly/berkeleymedia


Today the city of Berkeley won a major decision in a federal appeals court. The court denied a request by the CTIA-The Wireless Association to block Berkeley’s landmark cell phone “right to know” ordinance.

Berkeley’s ordinance which has been in effect since March 21 of last year requires cellphone retailers in the city to provide consumers with the following notification:

“To assure safety, the Federal Government requires that cell phones meet radiofrequency (RF) exposure guidelines. If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely.”

The three judges who heard the case on September 13, 2016 for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s denial of the industry association’s request for a preliminary injunction. The panel determined that “there was no irreparable harm based on the First Amendment or preemption, that the balance of equities tipped in Berkeley’s favor, that the ordinance was in the public interest, and that an injunction would harm that interest.”

Although the federal appeals court hearing only addresses the industry's request for a preliminary injunction, the ruling bodes well for the City because the industry’s argument in the overall case for killing the ordinance is based upon the First Amendment and federal preemption. The court rejected those arguments stating that that the ordinance is in the public interest as it complements and reinforces existing Federal law and policy.

More information about the ordinance and the lawsuit appears below. For links to media coverage see: Berkeley Cell Phone ''Right to Know'' Ordinance: Media Coverage.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit can be downloaded from bit.ly/CTIABkly042117.

A summary of the ruling follows:

“The panel affirmed the district court’s order denying a request for a preliminary injunction seeking to stay enforcement of a City of Berkeley ordinance requiring cell phone retailers to inform prospective cell phone purchasers that carrying a cell phone in certain ways may cause them to exceed Federal Communications Commission guidelines for exposure to radio-frequency radiation ….

… the panel held that the City’s compelled disclosure of commercial speech complied with the First Amendment because the information in the disclosure was reasonably related to a substantial governmental interest and was purely factual. Accordingly, the panel concluded that plaintiff had little likelihood of success on its First Amendment claim that the disclosure compelled by the Berkeley ordinance was unconstitutional.

The panel determined that there was little likelihood of success on plaintiff’s contention that the Berkeley ordinance was preempted. The panel held that Berkeley’s compelled disclosure did no more than alert consumers to the safety disclosures that the Federal Communication Commission requires, and to direct consumers to federally compelled instructions in their user manuals providing specific information about how to avoid excessive exposure. The panel held that far from conflicting with federal law and policy, the Berkeley ordinance complements and reinforces it.

In affirming the denial of a preliminary injunction, the panel further determined that there was no irreparable harm based on the First Amendment or preemption, that the balance of equities tipped in Berkeley’s favor, that the ordinance was in the public interest, and that an injunction would harm that interest.

Dissenting in part, Judge Friedland stated that Berkeley’s ordinance likely violates the First Amendment and therefore should have been preliminarily enjoined. She stated that taken as a whole, the most natural reading of the Berkeley disclosure warns that carrying a cell phone in one’s pocket is unsafe. Yet Berkeley had not attempted to argue, let alone to prove, that message was true.”

Zie de link bovenaan voor eerdere artikelen over dit onderwerp.

Bron 2: sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/10/11/appeals-court-wont-reconsider-challenge-to-berkeley-cellphone-warnings-law/

11 okt. 2017

Appeals Court Won’t Reconsider Challenge To Berkeley Cellphone Warnings Law

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — A federal appeals court in San Francisco Wednesday turned down an industry group’s bid for reconsideration of the group’s challenge to a Berkeley cellphone warning law.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to grant a rare rehearing by an 11-judge panel on an appeal by a group known as CTIA-The Wireless Association.

In April, a three-judge panel of the appeals court by a 2-1 vote declined to block the law. The court majority said the warning was “purely factual” and “reasonably related to the health and safety of consumers.”

The city law, which took effect last year, requires retailers to warn cellphone customers that wearing their device next to the body could result in exposure to radiofrequency radiation exceeding federal guidelines.

The message adds, “Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely.”

Cellphone retailers must either post the message or give a paper copy to people who buy or lease phones.

After losing before the three-judge panel, the cellphone association appealed for a rehearing by an expanded panel, and was turned down Wednesday.

The Washington, D.C.-based association contends there is no evidence that cellphones are harmful. It claims the law violates the free speech rights of retailers by forcing them to provide a message they don’t agree with.

The appeal for reconsideration was submitted to the 29 active judges on the circuit court. The court never reveals the vote on such appeals, but its order today indicated that two judges favored rehearing the case.

Weer een nederlaag voor de telecom-industrie.
Zie ook:


Berichten%20Internationaal/10762/phonegate_french_government_data_cell_phones_expose_to_radiation_higher_than_manufacturers_claim

Artikelen/10703/redir .


Ga terug naar het hoofdmenu
Afdrukken | Vragen | RSS | Disclaimer