FDA to Marlboro Man: Shut Up!
The First Amendment is designed to protect political speech and, by extension, journalists. Authors, artists and others in the creative community have won extensive First Amendment protections, too. But advertisers, do they have First Amendment rights? Some, but the right to advertise stuff is less protected by the First Amendment than the right to give your opinion on political and social issues.
Within the world of advertising, what about the right to advertise products that are legal, but not to everyone, and that are clearly harmful: cigarettes, for example. Cigarette ads have not been allowed on American television for 35 years, but now there is a proposal in Congress to clamp down on other forms of cigarette advertising. A National Public Radio story discusses the proposal.
Gabcast! Club MediaNote #22
posted by Mike Eberts (AKA Your Humble Blogger) @ 1:51 PM
1 Comments:
I listened to the audio provided by NPR and I have to say I am not in support of the decision to have the FDA come in on the advertising regulations of the tobacco companies. An example was cited by one of the tobacco companies head as saying that if the FDA comes in, they are essentially saying that cigarettes can be okay for you. If it is the FDA's mission to ensure that all human life here in the United States is staying healthy by their standards, than cigarettes would have to be ruled out; and yet we as humans constantly abuse the regular standard. We don't consume quantities of items by their suggested serving size. Studies show we go over moderation. By having the FDA come in and restrict the already much restricted ad campaign of the tobacco companies is just plain foolish. They as an administration are taking away our choices. No matter, kids, and adults alike regardless if there's advertising will continue to smoke; technically its still the "cool" thing to do.
Post a Comment
<< Home