CMJR 494 - Week 5

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.