How does speech for profit influence the discourse of ideas in contemporary society?
It is printed in the Harvard Law Review (1967) Page 191 - that "advertising is a medium of information and persuasion, providing much of the day-to day 'education' of the American Public and facilitating the flexible allocation of resources necessary to a free enterprise economy. Neither profit motivation or desire to influence private economic decisions necessarily distinguished the peddler from the preacher, the publisher, or the politician". This statement, in my opinion, places all types of speech for profit in one basic category. That is, no matter where the information or pleas for funds come from, the motivation is the same. That being, to gain funds for a cause or product. This is true, if the plea is from a pulpit, the Internet, Television or public forum. The FTC, or Federal Trade Commission, focuses on the use of deceptive advertising for profit. In my opinion, the function of the FTC is to regulate and precide over all types of endeavors that elicit funds from public or private endeavors or consumers. How do you define "deceptive" in this context? We, as consumers, are beseiged with information from telephone solicitation, public broadcast stations, government agencies, fund raising groups and events. The information that is provided must and should be legitimate and forthright. We rely on the information provided to make decisions based on integrity and sound judgement.
"No longer is the consumer assumed to be the most unsophisticated and the most gullible. Now, the audience for an advertisement is considered to be the 'reasonable consumer', a standard similar to the "reasonable person' rule in tort law", per our text - Page 195. How do we define "reasonable consumer"? It is logical that the consumer make sound decisions based on facts and information provided. This can become very complicated when issues are misinterpreted and misconstrued by the soliciters. Deception is a word that is at the root of this First Ammendment issue. We, the consumer, can be victim to false information and it is in our own best interest to seek out solid facts from reputable sources when making decisions regarding monetary, or profit based, issues.
The ramifications can be caustic for businesses accused of misconduct. As per the First Amendment Library Case Summary log, such was the case in 1998 when Marc Kasky filed a lawsuit against Nike for alleged false advertising violating state consumer laws prohibiting false advertising and unfair competition. Nike responded with a series of press releases denying any misconduct and filed a motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds. The case was first dismissed by trial judge David Garcia on Nike's First Amendment grounds. This case was brought before the U. S. Supreme Court in 2003. Whatever the outcome, Nike received some pretty serious media attention, causing we, the consumers, to take another look at their practices, albeit legitimate or not. Failed advertising at it's worst.
"The FTC has been the most active federal regulatory agency in the arena of policing commercial expression enforcing a basic policy that requires advertising to be truthful. In general, the courts have upheld the power of the FTC to regulate commercial speech", per our text - page 213.
Our contemporary society is becoming more educated and able to attain information from multiple resources available to us. It is to the benefit of those wanting to make the most of an advertising endeavor to consider all
factors and influences when promoting a speech for profit platform. Does new technology and an educated society become relevant when preparing campaigns and speeches for profit? Absolutely.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
CMJR 450 - Week 5
The Second Ammendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens for their right to keep and bear arms. John Adams, one of our nations founders, lead a defense for British soldiers on trial for the famous Boston Massacre. He stated, "Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence".
David Carr writes in our text Page 203, "We cast ourselves in an unfolding story and act it out. Because we choose the story and our role in it, we can switch stories at any time". This quote is an open-ended dictation of the profound importance of how the Second Ammendment is upheld, defended and protested in our society. I believe there is a double-edged sword to these points.
The events of Columbine and Virginia Tech speak volumes to the conflict by which we interpret this freedom that we may choose to follow. How do we purposefully and safely integrate this enormous power that is held in the freedom to bear arms? Is it possible to safely and assuredly allow the Second Ammendment to sustain itself in today's society? What is the interpretation of Mr. Carr's statement? Our "stories" are based on each individual's values and lifes experiences. How then, can we rely on the individual interpretation of what is best for all when we each relay our own stories as individual assessments of what is best for the good of the nation?
Appauling statistics on the failure to bear arms is the reality of what history tells on the affect of such a privilege being revoked or denied. "Seven countries instituted gun control and almost immediately rounded up and slaughtered almost 56 million innocent people. (i.e., Germany, China, Uganda) The implied relationship is clearly causal: 56 million people would have lived if they had kept their guns". - page 209
In The Turner Diaries, Turner attributes "political legitimacy to individual citizens who are entitled to violate a gun control law" - page 209. He refers to the notion of us "meakly allowing ourselves to be disarmed". I disagree with Mr. Turner that any of us would meakly consider such a notion.
My opinion is the voice of most Americans. Guns, in the right hands, are a freedom we have been given. In most circumstances, this right protects us and enables us to live in a society wherein we can live without fear or consequences. However, how do we keep guns out of the hands of derrranged and mentally ill individuals who abuse this right?
Perhaps the answer lies in the issuance of guns to those who are proven of sound mind. How do we achieve this? If I knew the answer, I would be a hero in any sense of the word. Our right to bear arms is a gift. It is, unfortunately, a gift that has been abused by some and has cost the lives of many an innocent bystander. The Second Ammendment is controversial and leads many debates on the subject of bearing arms.
For the parents of the victims of Columbine, the scope of the Second Ammendment takes on a difficult and passionate debate. Where do we draw the line? Who do we permit to carry a gun? How do we control that which we have no control over? Where do we begin and where will it end?
David Carr writes in our text Page 203, "We cast ourselves in an unfolding story and act it out. Because we choose the story and our role in it, we can switch stories at any time". This quote is an open-ended dictation of the profound importance of how the Second Ammendment is upheld, defended and protested in our society. I believe there is a double-edged sword to these points.
The events of Columbine and Virginia Tech speak volumes to the conflict by which we interpret this freedom that we may choose to follow. How do we purposefully and safely integrate this enormous power that is held in the freedom to bear arms? Is it possible to safely and assuredly allow the Second Ammendment to sustain itself in today's society? What is the interpretation of Mr. Carr's statement? Our "stories" are based on each individual's values and lifes experiences. How then, can we rely on the individual interpretation of what is best for all when we each relay our own stories as individual assessments of what is best for the good of the nation?
Appauling statistics on the failure to bear arms is the reality of what history tells on the affect of such a privilege being revoked or denied. "Seven countries instituted gun control and almost immediately rounded up and slaughtered almost 56 million innocent people. (i.e., Germany, China, Uganda) The implied relationship is clearly causal: 56 million people would have lived if they had kept their guns". - page 209
In The Turner Diaries, Turner attributes "political legitimacy to individual citizens who are entitled to violate a gun control law" - page 209. He refers to the notion of us "meakly allowing ourselves to be disarmed". I disagree with Mr. Turner that any of us would meakly consider such a notion.
My opinion is the voice of most Americans. Guns, in the right hands, are a freedom we have been given. In most circumstances, this right protects us and enables us to live in a society wherein we can live without fear or consequences. However, how do we keep guns out of the hands of derrranged and mentally ill individuals who abuse this right?
Perhaps the answer lies in the issuance of guns to those who are proven of sound mind. How do we achieve this? If I knew the answer, I would be a hero in any sense of the word. Our right to bear arms is a gift. It is, unfortunately, a gift that has been abused by some and has cost the lives of many an innocent bystander. The Second Ammendment is controversial and leads many debates on the subject of bearing arms.
For the parents of the victims of Columbine, the scope of the Second Ammendment takes on a difficult and passionate debate. Where do we draw the line? Who do we permit to carry a gun? How do we control that which we have no control over? Where do we begin and where will it end?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
