Constitutional Right to Advertise

[A18]

For example, do tobacco companies have a first amendment right to advertise on television?

I say yes.

[Alcon]

Not if the television station does not want them to.  Otherwise, yes.

[A18]

Well, yes, and if a gun store doesn't want to sell you a gun, I wouldn't say your second amendment 'right to bear arms' has been abridged.

[Cashcow]

Of course they should. It's up to the station. I would not expect Nickelodeon to start airing Joe Camel ads...

[A18]

Of course they should. It's up to the station. I would not expect Nickelodeon to start airing Joe Camel ads...

Federal law prohibits stations from running tobacco ads on television. I'm asking if that law is constitutional or not.

If it's constitutional, the answer to the poll is presumably no. If it's unconstitutional, the answer would presumably be yes.

[Cashcow]

Yes, I believe it to be unconstitutional and voted yes on the poll.

[Cubby]

D- No

I hate all advertising. There should only be constitutional rights for living, breathing people. Not corporations, ad companies or any other entity that you wish to empower A18.

(Awkward silence)

"So then there's that attitude........"

[A18]

I didn't ask what there should be a constitutional right for. I asked what there is a constitutional right for.

Corporations are owned by living, breathing people who have the right to speak, collectively or individually, through whatever entities they choose, for whatever purposes they choose.

[True Democrat]

Yes, but I believe public opinion is enough cause for television stations not to run the ads.

[Cubby]

I didn't ask what there should be a constitutional right for. I asked what there is a constitutional right for.

Corporations are owned by living, breathing people who have the right to speak, collectively or individually, through whatever entities they choose, for whatever purposes they choose.

Well the thread title said "constitutional right to advertise" even though the poll directions don't.

But corporations THEMselves (I'd underline that word if I could) are not "living or breathing people", they are an artificial creation that can exist in one second and be gone the next if the company dissolves. Real people can't be created and destroyed that way. We shouldn't give corporations the same rights as people, that is way over the line, unless I'm totally missing the point here.

[Jake]

Obviously, yes. Speech on TV is no different than speech when just talking to someone.

[A18]

Corporations are owned by people, who have the right to speak. That includes with their property, and through organizations.

[Everett]

Why shouldn't tobacco companies have the right to advertise? Doesn't basically every other type of company have that 'right'? Decency issues aside, it should really only depend on whether or not the television station is willing to air the commercial. If the TV station is perfectly fine with airing commercials from tobacco companies, the government should not create any obstructions regardless of what the 'health experts' say regarding smoking. I don't believe that there are (or would be) problems with decency with regards to smoking commercials, so the supposed need for censorship is really not justified. Like I said, though, if the television station doesn't want to air a tobacco commercial, that is simply the television station's decision. It is not as though preventing tobacco commercials from appearing on privately owned television stations will suddenly curb smoking.

Smoking is healthier than fascism, kids.

[Emsworth]

Yes.

We shouldn't give corporations the same rights as people, that is way over the line, unless I'm totally missing the point here.

I wouldn't say that we "give" rights to anybody. Rights are inherently guaranteed by the Constitution. So its not a question of whom we arbitrarily decide to give rights to; its a question of what actions the Constitution prevents federal and state governments from taking. And one of those actions is passing laws abriding the freedom of speech.

[AkSaber]

Not if the television station does not want them to.  Otherwise, yes.

^^^^^ Me agrees.

[Bono]

Corporations are owned by people, who have the right to speak. That includes with their property, and through organizations.

If those people can't be sued for their assets for what they do under the covert of a corporation, why shoyuld they matter for the discussion?

[Ebowed]

The bill that prohibits cigarette advertisements on television is unconstitional, yes.

But what about a commercial that advertizes child pornography?  We have to draw the line somewhere.

[Emsworth]

But what about a commercial that advertizes child pornography?  We have to draw the line somewhere.

I recognize that state governments have a legitimate interest in banning child pornography, as the protection of minors decidedly outweighs other concerns. So if the product itself is banned, there is no point in the advertisement.

However, I see no such argument for normal pornography advertisements being prohibited.

[Alcon]

But what about a commercial that advertizes child pornography?  We have to draw the line somewhere.

I recognize that state governments have a legitimate interest in banning child pornography, as the protection of minors decidedly outweighs other concerns. So if the product itself is banned, there is no point in the advertisement.

However, I see no such argument for normal pornography advertisements being prohibited.

Unless, of course, the advertisements were pornographic in themselves, in which case it would break the law for children to see them.

Girls Gone Wild ads, for instance, walk that line.

[MODU]

No, advertising is not protected under the First Amendment. 

[Emsworth]

No, advertising is not protected under the First Amendment. 

Might I ask why you feel that way?

[MODU]

No, advertising is not protected under the First Amendment. 

Might I ask why you feel that way?

While companies are given "life" by the people that work for them, the company itself is not granted the protection of freedom of speech.  Therefore, what they say are do are subject to restrictions and limitations in what they can say, do, or claim, such as in marketing.  Otherwise, we'll go back to the days of snake oil salesmen.

[TexasPatriot2024]

Yes, but the T.V stations can deny them add time.