5 ms·

Advertisements are a form of free speech. 6 vs 3 Supreme Court "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_

Advertisements are a form of free speech. 6 vs 3 Supreme Court "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc. "

2bitencryption 10y ago
This is the reason why in the USA you will see commercials for medications ("Ask your doctor about XYZ; you know, instead of letting your doctor decide what's best.")
- aub3bhat 10y ago
  Hahah Actually its worse, "Ask your doctor about XYZ, and if your doctor did not tell you about it, We will find out! Since we know her name and how much XYZ she prescribed vs generic ABC!"
- treehau5_ 10y ago
  It was Pfizer that pioneered that, and it's cataloged wonderfully in the book "Overdosed America"
- takeda 10y ago
  Is it really, so why they don't advertise cigarettes?
  - chadgeidel 10y ago
    Because - at least in the US - Tobacco advertising is specifically banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Cigarette_Smoking_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Cigarette_Smokin...
    - takeda 10y ago
      But if it is a free speech, doesn't this law then violate the constitution? I would imagine that if it was a free speech, then tobacco industry already would have this law thrown out.
      - zyx321 10y ago
        Can you legally tell children to kill themselves?
        amputect 10y ago
        Only if you do it on twitter.
mrcactu5 10y ago
cases like these usually depend on who is making money in the event of a decision. business make money off advertisements, therefore it's free speech
brightsize 10y ago
>Advertisements are a form of free speech. ...that can be regulated: "After passage of the billboard-regulating Highway Beautification Act of 1965, Vermont moved to ban billboards outright in 1968. All billboards were gone from Vermont by 1974. Vermont is one of four states to have prohibited by law all billboards from view of highway rights-of-way, except for signs on the contiguous property of the business location." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Vermont#Conservation_and_development.E2.80.94Title_10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Vermont#Conservati...
- yazbo_mcclure 10y ago
  Wow that makes sense now. Vermont seems so like stepping back in time
- jaredklewis 10y ago
  > ...that can be regulated: And in the interest of further eludicating those those that are unfamiliar with the nuanced manner in which courts use the term "free speech," I would say: "That can be regulated, just like all other forms of free speech." Even protected categories of speech like political speech can be regulated assuming the government interest passes strict scrutiny.
deno 10y ago
If ads are protected free speech how are tobacco ads illegal?
- x0x0 10y ago
  Speech is regulated all the time. Free speech in practice means we bias towards permitting speech, but many categories of speech are regulated. To wit: you cannot lie in advertisements, you cannot incite imminent violence, you can be successfully sued for slander and/or libel, etc. Read the first two paragraphs of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite... ; it also discusses commercial speech.
  - deno 10y ago
    United States still has obscenity laws, a backdoor around first amendment, which can be interpreted to mean whatever the court wants it to mean in any given situation. It exists, unchallenged, because otherwise child pornography would have to be legal. My question was, wouldn’t this ruling be a basis to challenge the outright Tobacco ad ban? Before the ban there was still regulation, the ads had to be offset with other content, pro-health etc. Just like with political ads on public airwaves now. In Canada, for example, the Tobacco ban was successfully challenged in court as violating Freedom of Speech as recently as 1991. Ultimately the ban remained in place because of another backdoor called “peace, order, and good government.”

Advertisements are a form of free speech. 6 vs 3 Supreme Court "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc. "

2bitencryption 10y ago

This is the reason why in the USA you will see commercials for medications ("Ask your doctor about XYZ; you know, instead of letting your doctor decide what's best.")

aub3bhat 10y ago
Hahah Actually its worse, "Ask your doctor about XYZ, and if your doctor did not tell you about it, We will find out! Since we know her name and how much XYZ she prescribed vs generic ABC!"
treehau5_ 10y ago
It was Pfizer that pioneered that, and it's cataloged wonderfully in the book "Overdosed America"
takeda 10y ago
Is it really, so why they don't advertise cigarettes?
- chadgeidel 10y ago
  Because - at least in the US - Tobacco advertising is specifically banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Cigarette_Smoking_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Cigarette_Smokin...
  - takeda 10y ago
    But if it is a free speech, doesn't this law then violate the constitution? I would imagine that if it was a free speech, then tobacco industry already would have this law thrown out.
    - zyx321 10y ago
      Can you legally tell children to kill themselves?
      - amputect 10y ago
        Only if you do it on twitter.

mrcactu5 10y ago

cases like these usually depend on who is making money in the event of a decision. business make money off advertisements, therefore it's free speech

brightsize 10y ago

>Advertisements are a form of free speech. ...that can be regulated: "After passage of the billboard-regulating Highway Beautification Act of 1965, Vermont moved to ban billboards outright in 1968. All billboards were gone from Vermont by 1974. Vermont is one of four states to have prohibited by law all billboards from view of highway rights-of-way, except for signs on the contiguous property of the business location." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Vermont#Conservation_and_development.E2.80.94Title_10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Vermont#Conservati...

yazbo_mcclure 10y ago
Wow that makes sense now. Vermont seems so like stepping back in time
jaredklewis 10y ago
> ...that can be regulated: And in the interest of further eludicating those those that are unfamiliar with the nuanced manner in which courts use the term "free speech," I would say: "That can be regulated, just like all other forms of free speech." Even protected categories of speech like political speech can be regulated assuming the government interest passes strict scrutiny.

deno 10y ago

If ads are protected free speech how are tobacco ads illegal?

x0x0 10y ago
Speech is regulated all the time. Free speech in practice means we bias towards permitting speech, but many categories of speech are regulated. To wit: you cannot lie in advertisements, you cannot incite imminent violence, you can be successfully sued for slander and/or libel, etc. Read the first two paragraphs of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite... ; it also discusses commercial speech.
- deno 10y ago
  United States still has obscenity laws, a backdoor around first amendment, which can be interpreted to mean whatever the court wants it to mean in any given situation. It exists, unchallenged, because otherwise child pornography would have to be legal. My question was, wouldn’t this ruling be a basis to challenge the outright Tobacco ad ban? Before the ban there was still regulation, the ads had to be offset with other content, pro-health etc. Just like with political ads on public airwaves now. In Canada, for example, the Tobacco ban was successfully challenged in court as violating Freedom of Speech as recently as 1991. Ultimately the ban remained in place because of another backdoor called “peace, order, and good government.”