This is a red herring. If you market a soft drink containing cyanide, you are (rightfully) put in prison and stopped from producing it.
To address a better version of your argument. Should cigarette makers be forced to include health warnings on their products? Well, marketing a product as safe that is not safe is fraud, so if they do not do this voluntarily, then yes. The case at hand (Apple v. Samsung) is not remotely like that, though.
But not, apparently, required to tell anyone who's bought it not to drink it.
This did pretty much happen in the US and was partly why the FDA was founded. Someone created a medicine which used a solvent known to be toxic to humans because they were too lazy to check, refused to tell the pharmacies they'd sold it to to withdraw it, and couldn't legally be forced to until someone spotted a technical violation of labelling law. They called it an "elixir", and legally only stuff that used alcohol as a solvent could be named that; if they'd labelled it as "medicine" instead there'd have been no way to force a recall at all and people would've just kept on taking it.
Your original claim was that it infringes on my free speech to be forced to say something I don't agree with.
So, if a cigarette manufacturer doesn't believe his products cause cancer, your original argument would suggests that requiring a label infringes on his right free speech.
The cyanide example seems like it is a red herring because it is ridiculous. But it follows logically from your original claim.
It is legal to buy/sell cyanide. In practice, you couldn't sell it as a soft drink... but if someone believed cyanide "Tastes Great. Very Healthy. Just Drink it," they would be allowed to say that according to the position you are arguing for.
if someone believed cyanide "Tastes Great. Very Healthy. Just Drink it," they would be allowed to say that according to the position you are arguing for.
I don't know why you're claiming I argue that, because in my last post, I pre-emptively explained why I am not claiming that (because to do so would be fraudulent).
Let me reiterate.
The basic principle is: The only time force is acceptable, is in order to undo or prevent someone else's initiation of force or fraud.
You likely don't agree with that principle, but I think everyone ought to. That is what freedom actually consists of, and it's a necessary and sufficient condition for human flourishing.
How does that apply here? The government should not tell someone what they cannot (or must) say, excepting cases where that person is initiating force by what they're saying. Selling someone cianide would be such a case. Disputing whether someone copied someone else or not in a design is not such a case.