3 ms·

American obsession with the 1st amendment is so odd. It doesn't allow for any reasonable discussion of nuance of speech. But, i think there is precedent for ad

by tayo42 6y ago

American obsession with the 1st amendment is so odd. It doesn't allow for any reasonable discussion of nuance of speech. But, i think there is precedent for advertising, there are restrictions on tobacco advertising. I don't see why it can't be extended to other things that are advertised.

atypicaluser 6y ago
> American obsession with the 1st amendment is so odd. It doesn't allow for any reasonable discussion of nuance of speech. Who defines 'reasonable'? As the federal government can't involve itself (which is at the heart of this so-called obsession,) the participants in the discussion will have to determine that for themselves. And if they can't agree on what is 'reasonable'? > restrictions on tobacco advertising There are restrictions, a brief history of which can be found at Truth Initiative[0]. I wonder, though, if these restrictions remain in place because no one in Big Tobacco will challenge them? Especially if these same restrictions help to keep smaller players out of the market... [0] https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-industry-marketing/what-do-tobacco-advertising-restrictions-look-today https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-indus...
- tayo42 6y ago
  Idk why you picked on the word reasonable. But your proving my point by attempting to shut down the discussion already In reality the government is already discussing what is protected and what isn't. Free speech is an illusion. Otherwise we wouldn't have exceptions to free speech. There wouldn't an fcc if it it was truly free. I think we should be explicit about what is protected and what isn't. We want to protect the expression of criticism of our government. I don't think we should be making choices about how society functions based off of ambiguous tweet sized one liners. This site your commenting on has higher expectations, maybe our bill of rights should too. Is advertising really speech? It's ideas with the intent to manipulate people, commercial propaganda. What is speech, maybe we should define that better. It could be the ideas and opinions of individuals. Its a mistake to provide the same protections to a corporation. There's nuance to speech, the 1st amendment is ambiguous. The intent is protect people, government exists to protect people. The rest of the world is successful without a almost religious devotion to free speech, there's no reason why the us can't, if anything it's detrimental to our society.
  - atypicaluser 6y ago
    > Idk why you picked on the word reasonable. But your proving my point by attempting to shut down the discussion already I picked 'reasonable' because the word has different connotations depending on the participants, for example, I may believe I'm being reasonable, whereas you may believe I'm being obstinate. And that's just talking about the word 'reasonable.' Toss the question of 'who's being reasonable?' into a heated discussion between opposite sides of a Covid-19 debate, or an immigration debate, or an abortion debate, or an Apple debate, and see where it gets you. > There's nuance to speech, the 1st amendment is ambiguous. The FA is anything but ambiguous. 'Congress shall make no law...' That's Ten Commandments territory as far as clarity goes. Speech coupled with action, or with imminent action, or with likely physical harm is where the US Supreme Court has generally allowed lawmakers to go hog-wild. Burning the US flag (political speech,) using racial epithets (hate speech,) publishing graphic pornography (sex speech,) and refusing to testify against one's spouse (silence) have all been green-lit by SCOTUS. As has propaganda. Why do you suppose the press is given such wide latitude in libel cases against them by public figures[0]? The press can sway public opinion for or against a politician via lie by omission, reliance on alleged anonymous sources, outright lies and later retractions, out-of-context quotes, associating irrelevant stories or images with a politician, interpreting the politician's words, non-reporting, etc. What is this other than outright manipulation (of both facts and people) and propaganda? We can further discuss the propaganda(s) of national holidays, of political treatises (e.g. Das Kapital,) of American invasions into the Middle East, all of which are seemingly allowed by SCOTUS, but I'll wrap up by sticking to television commercials--why should ASPCA or The Humane Society be allowed to tug at my heartstrings via dogs in cages? Why should the Reverend Franklin Graham be allowed to preach the word of Jesus to me when I've lost a loved one? Why should a PAC be allowed to run ads associating my pick for the US Senate with forest fires, an abhorrent murder or the decisions of another unpopular politician? Should non-profits and tax-exempts be allowed more/better free speech rights than commercial entities when they engage in the same manipulation techniques as those entities? [0] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
    - tayo42 6y ago

by tayo42 6y ago

atypicaluser 6y ago

> American obsession with the 1st amendment is so odd. It doesn't allow for any reasonable discussion of nuance of speech. Who defines 'reasonable'? As the federal government can't involve itself (which is at the heart of this so-called obsession,) the participants in the discussion will have to determine that for themselves. And if they can't agree on what is 'reasonable'? > restrictions on tobacco advertising There are restrictions, a brief history of which can be found at Truth Initiative[0]. I wonder, though, if these restrictions remain in place because no one in Big Tobacco will challenge them? Especially if these same restrictions help to keep smaller players out of the market... [0] https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-industry-marketing/what-do-tobacco-advertising-restrictions-look-today https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-indus...

tayo42 6y ago
Idk why you picked on the word reasonable. But your proving my point by attempting to shut down the discussion already In reality the government is already discussing what is protected and what isn't. Free speech is an illusion. Otherwise we wouldn't have exceptions to free speech. There wouldn't an fcc if it it was truly free. I think we should be explicit about what is protected and what isn't. We want to protect the expression of criticism of our government. I don't think we should be making choices about how society functions based off of ambiguous tweet sized one liners. This site your commenting on has higher expectations, maybe our bill of rights should too. Is advertising really speech? It's ideas with the intent to manipulate people, commercial propaganda. What is speech, maybe we should define that better. It could be the ideas and opinions of individuals. Its a mistake to provide the same protections to a corporation. There's nuance to speech, the 1st amendment is ambiguous. The intent is protect people, government exists to protect people. The rest of the world is successful without a almost religious devotion to free speech, there's no reason why the us can't, if anything it's detrimental to our society.
- atypicaluser 6y ago
  > Idk why you picked on the word reasonable. But your proving my point by attempting to shut down the discussion already I picked 'reasonable' because the word has different connotations depending on the participants, for example, I may believe I'm being reasonable, whereas you may believe I'm being obstinate. And that's just talking about the word 'reasonable.' Toss the question of 'who's being reasonable?' into a heated discussion between opposite sides of a Covid-19 debate, or an immigration debate, or an abortion debate, or an Apple debate, and see where it gets you. > There's nuance to speech, the 1st amendment is ambiguous. The FA is anything but ambiguous. 'Congress shall make no law...' That's Ten Commandments territory as far as clarity goes. Speech coupled with action, or with imminent action, or with likely physical harm is where the US Supreme Court has generally allowed lawmakers to go hog-wild. Burning the US flag (political speech,) using racial epithets (hate speech,) publishing graphic pornography (sex speech,) and refusing to testify against one's spouse (silence) have all been green-lit by SCOTUS. As has propaganda. Why do you suppose the press is given such wide latitude in libel cases against them by public figures[0]? The press can sway public opinion for or against a politician via lie by omission, reliance on alleged anonymous sources, outright lies and later retractions, out-of-context quotes, associating irrelevant stories or images with a politician, interpreting the politician's words, non-reporting, etc. What is this other than outright manipulation (of both facts and people) and propaganda? We can further discuss the propaganda(s) of national holidays, of political treatises (e.g. Das Kapital,) of American invasions into the Middle East, all of which are seemingly allowed by SCOTUS, but I'll wrap up by sticking to television commercials--why should ASPCA or The Humane Society be allowed to tug at my heartstrings via dogs in cages? Why should the Reverend Franklin Graham be allowed to preach the word of Jesus to me when I've lost a loved one? Why should a PAC be allowed to run ads associating my pick for the US Senate with forest fires, an abhorrent murder or the decisions of another unpopular politician? Should non-profits and tax-exempts be allowed more/better free speech rights than commercial entities when they engage in the same manipulation techniques as those entities? [0] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
  - tayo42 6y ago