4 ms·
This is good because it opens the door to advertising that goes against the consumerist grain. This is very bad because it limits the rights of people and busi
by briansmith 18y ago
This is good because it opens the door to advertising that goes against the consumerist grain.
This is very bad because it limits the rights of people and businesses to choose who they do business with. Imagine being forced to run an advertisement from the KKK or the NRA or any other social group you disagree with. Imagine a pro-immigration website being forced to run anti-immigration advertisements. Whichever "social causes" have the most financial backing will control all advertising on all outlets--worse than what is already happening now.
- brandnewlow 18y agoI agree with point #2, but this is public television they're arguing about, right?
- chancho 18y agoNot quite public television, but public airwaves. Well to be honest I don't quite know where the CBC fits in that spectrum. Regardless, broadcasters are just licensing the public airwaves, they don't own them. There is not slippery slope here, though. Fears about freedom of web advertising are unfounded. The airwaves are a scarce resource: there's only so many available frequencies. That's why the government regulates their use. Websites are not limited in any way, neither are cable television channels, so those media do not need to be regulated.
- lutorm 18y agoThese companies have a government-approved oligopoly on the public airwaves, and make big money with it. It is not unreasonable to say that first amendment rights extend to the public airwaves, even if access happens to be managed by a private corporation. And yes, that would by inference mean that the KKK or NRA could run ads, too. You can't have free speech for only the speech you like.