The article “Johnson & Johnson told to pay $72 million dollars in the case of talc cancer " by Ivana Kottasova and Dani Stewart focuses on the story of Jackie Fox, who died of ovarian cancer at the age of 62. The family of the deceased, Jackie, claimed that the premature death was due to prolonged use of talc, a product of the Johnson & Johnson company. The family said that the company was aware of the dangers and side effects of using the chemical, but did not indicate this on the labels were divided over talc's potential to cause cancer. Court denied judgment to defendant and awarded plaintiff family $72 million. Article “FDA Changes Course on Graphic Warning Labels for Cigarettes.” by Steve presents a scenario in which a case brought to federal court by the American Cancer Society along with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids was dismissed. The issue before the Federal Court was to determine whether tobacco manufacturers should adopt new warning labels or keep the old ones and advertise tobacco as they wished. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In their article, Ivana and Stewart (2016), focus on the need to have correct warning labels. The issue before the court in the article was decided for the plaintiff. This is to say that the defendant was found guilty of failing to label his product with warning labels. In the presence of such labels, consumers might have considered using another alternative product or abandoned the idea of ​​using it. Furthermore, the defendant could have had an easy time in court as he could have provided evidence of the use of warning labels and thus proved himself not guilty. In Steve's second article (2013), the author argues that tobacco companies are fighting the adoption of new warning labels. The new warning labels will pose a threat to the tobacco sales business as they will scare away most consumers. The American Cancer Society along with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is fighting against the use of old warning labels and advocating for the adoption of new warning labels. Freedom of speech is a fundamental and essential right, but there are limitations implicit in it. As the manufacturers of products in the two items, talc and tobacco, exercise their freedom of speech, they have neglected the well-being of consumers by endangering their lives at the expense of their business. This should not be the case. Steve's article claims that the plaintiffs in the article wanted the court to restrict tobacco advertising. This is intended to limit the free speech of tobacco sellers and save the lives of children and adults. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay The two articles address the government's ability to control and regulate companies' warning labels through the use of the courts. The articles recognize that courts, government bodies, are the ones to determine whether a warning label is appropriate or not. The court was left with the task of determining whether the talc powder manufacturers were guilty of not placing a warning label on their product or not. This shows that through the courts and other agencies.