Mr. X
Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2007
- Messages
- 214
- Reaction score
- 37
- Location
- London
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Advertising. Commercial speech has been deemed to be outside the scope of the First Amendment and that view has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Now a valid question is "Why is it outside of the scope of the First Amendment"? This isn't a new phenomenon and is in my view a travesty that has been continued because of precedence.
This is interesting because the Founding Fathers of the U.S. were intimately connected with commercial speech and the idea that it would be outside of protection is, in my opinion, something they would have disagreed with. Benjamin Franklin made his money off of advertising and George Washington advertised lands in the west (west of what was known at the time) for sale.
Outside of a strictly Libertarian or utopian view which this runs counter to, this is detrimental to the people. Obviously everyone is tired of what they see as advertising encroachment: ads over urinals, ads within packaging, ads at the gas pump etc. However, commercial speech provides a valuable source of information to the consumer by providing them with information as to what is available, where it can be purchased and what it offers. Arguably advertising serves the most useful function by providing people with information about where to allocate their scarce resource of money.
This argument always comes to a head with the so-called vices: alcohol and tobacco. Miller Time and Joe Camel. Admittedly there are other social issues that enter the fray such as condom advertising which Justice Rehnquist wrote a scathing critique of in a majority opinion upholding restrictions on commercial speech. But the tried and true issues are always alcohol and tobacco.
I'm no teetotaler nor completely without vice. I enjoy a good whisky and cigar and when both are on, the experience is sublime. However, I don't smoke cigarettes and find the smell of them rather obnoxious, nor am I a barfly so that's not my dog in this fight. I'm just someone who finds the First Amendment to be the best compilation of 45 words in human history.
Obviously no thinking person or society wants kids smoking tobacco. However in the U.S. there used to be notations on the packs of cigarettes that denoted how much tar and nicotine was in the cigarettes. This was banned by congress out of fear that some consumers would be misled into believing that they were smoking a safer cigarette. As a result the arms race amongst tobacco companies to create the cigarette lowest in tar and nicotine was abandoned. The restriction on speech threw the tobacco companies a bone and ultimately hurt the consumer. Tobacco companies no longer needed to create low tar and nicotine cigarettes because the market for it was effectively wiped out by the U.S. government. Any of you who smoke in the U.S. would be hard pressed to find the tar and nicotine of your preferred brand.
A brothel operating legally in a county in Nevada is prohibited from advertising its services in a county that prohibits prostitution, regardless of the fact that they are in compliance of the law where they are located. People can pour a beer in a television commercial, but they can't drink it. And tobacco ads are relegated to the nether regions of any modern advertising.
Personally I believe that this does more harm to the consumer than help. I also believe that this is counter to the whole point of the First Amendment which is to ensure that there is a vibrant marketplace of ideas because of the self-righting principle of truth.
I admit I'm mainly just posting this because most people aren't aware of this limitation that, in my opinion, borders on ludicrous. However I did smoke a Bolivar tonight with a dram of Caol Ila so my judgment might be skewed.
Now a valid question is "Why is it outside of the scope of the First Amendment"? This isn't a new phenomenon and is in my view a travesty that has been continued because of precedence.
This is interesting because the Founding Fathers of the U.S. were intimately connected with commercial speech and the idea that it would be outside of protection is, in my opinion, something they would have disagreed with. Benjamin Franklin made his money off of advertising and George Washington advertised lands in the west (west of what was known at the time) for sale.
Outside of a strictly Libertarian or utopian view which this runs counter to, this is detrimental to the people. Obviously everyone is tired of what they see as advertising encroachment: ads over urinals, ads within packaging, ads at the gas pump etc. However, commercial speech provides a valuable source of information to the consumer by providing them with information as to what is available, where it can be purchased and what it offers. Arguably advertising serves the most useful function by providing people with information about where to allocate their scarce resource of money.
This argument always comes to a head with the so-called vices: alcohol and tobacco. Miller Time and Joe Camel. Admittedly there are other social issues that enter the fray such as condom advertising which Justice Rehnquist wrote a scathing critique of in a majority opinion upholding restrictions on commercial speech. But the tried and true issues are always alcohol and tobacco.
I'm no teetotaler nor completely without vice. I enjoy a good whisky and cigar and when both are on, the experience is sublime. However, I don't smoke cigarettes and find the smell of them rather obnoxious, nor am I a barfly so that's not my dog in this fight. I'm just someone who finds the First Amendment to be the best compilation of 45 words in human history.
Obviously no thinking person or society wants kids smoking tobacco. However in the U.S. there used to be notations on the packs of cigarettes that denoted how much tar and nicotine was in the cigarettes. This was banned by congress out of fear that some consumers would be misled into believing that they were smoking a safer cigarette. As a result the arms race amongst tobacco companies to create the cigarette lowest in tar and nicotine was abandoned. The restriction on speech threw the tobacco companies a bone and ultimately hurt the consumer. Tobacco companies no longer needed to create low tar and nicotine cigarettes because the market for it was effectively wiped out by the U.S. government. Any of you who smoke in the U.S. would be hard pressed to find the tar and nicotine of your preferred brand.
A brothel operating legally in a county in Nevada is prohibited from advertising its services in a county that prohibits prostitution, regardless of the fact that they are in compliance of the law where they are located. People can pour a beer in a television commercial, but they can't drink it. And tobacco ads are relegated to the nether regions of any modern advertising.
Personally I believe that this does more harm to the consumer than help. I also believe that this is counter to the whole point of the First Amendment which is to ensure that there is a vibrant marketplace of ideas because of the self-righting principle of truth.
I admit I'm mainly just posting this because most people aren't aware of this limitation that, in my opinion, borders on ludicrous. However I did smoke a Bolivar tonight with a dram of Caol Ila so my judgment might be skewed.