Should We Ban Manipulative Marketing?

by: DaveJ

Tue Jul 28, 2009 at 14:15


You may have heard that some European countries have banned models that are underweight because seeing them has a harmful effect on teenage girls.

Should we be thinking about the negative societal effects of marketing? Should we ban marketing that is based on manipulating people by harming their self-esteem or encouraging them to do unhealthy things?  Should we ban advertising that utilizes techniques that effect how our brains work?  Should we demand that ads stop distracting us from our thoughts?  I have been wondering about this.

Marketers today are learning how to reach down into the wiring of the brain itself, to manipulate us at a level that we do not consciously perceive and cannot control.  Science has come a long way in recent decades.  There is a new kind of marketing called neuromarketing that actually uses brain scans to measure how our brains react to certain stimuli.  We are in danger of marketers using the information gained from these new techniques to come up with ways to sell us things and make us do things and we may in many cases be literally unable to resist.

It is not unprecedented to think about restricting marketing, even in the "free market" United States.  We have confronted the problem of people being harmed by marketing in the past, with tobacco advertising and false claims of medical benefits.  It used to be against regulations to make false claims in TV ads.  But by and large companies have free range to manipulate people as they see fit.
DaveJ :: Should We Ban Manipulative Marketing?
But today we have an epidemic of obesity, the result of food-company marketing.  The companies have learned to literally manipulate our metabolisms to the point where many of us cannot resist overeating.  When you have a third of all of our people obese and another third seriously overweight it is obvious that the problem is not "self-control."  The problem is systemic and beyond an individual's ability to control.  Don't we as a society have an obligation to step in and correct this?

Obesity is just one example of what I call "marketing diseases."  What about marketing that hits at our self-esteem?  Makes us think we are ugly, undesirable, stupid, etc?  Is this good for us?

Another kind of marketing is aspirational.  Don't get me started about people who live fantasy lives, thinking they are starring in a James Bond or Marlboro Man movie, because of the harmful effects of unrestricted marketing on our human psychology.

Here is one more reason I think we should step in and regulate marketing and advertising.  Advertising is the science of getting our attention.  The most effective advertising gets us to stop what we are doing and pay attention to the ad.

But have you considered the extent to which such advertising is a distraction from our lives?  We have public nuisance laws that prevent people from disturbing the peace.  So what about advertising?  At what point does advertising rise to the level of attention-grabbing distraction that we have a right to take control and prohibit?  Good advertising gets our attention - and our attention is OURs.

I think we have the right to think about the things we want to think about.  A concurrent right then would be the right not to have our attention distracted -- not to have things shoved in our face.  

So suppose that we require companies to get our permission to expose their advertising to us?  Suppose we charged a fee for the right to promote products and services to us?  

So even when legitimate, there must be regulation of advertising and marketing to be sure that it is being used legitimately and that we are being fairly compensated for the use of us as a market for the products.

I hope this gets us thinking about our rights as people, vs the rights of companies to project marketing at us regardless of the effect.  

What are your thoughts?

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Should We Ban Manipulative Marketing? | 58 comments
More than anything, (4.00 / 3)
I just wish that we would bring back Home Economics as a class, but instead of the traditional 'be a mommy' type crap we had in the '60s, rather structure it as a course on how to run a household:

1) Advertising and media literacy: learn about the techniques that advertisers use to manipulate, and how to analyze the things critically.  

2) Credit literacy: learn about your credit score, what can be counted for and against you, and how to properly use credit.  

3) Cooking and sewing: decrease dependency on the fast food and textile industries by giving every american child the ability to mend clothes and cook for themselves.  My experience in college made the inability of most americans under a certain to cook shocking.

And so on.  Rather than endlessly repeating math and reading for students, let's actively give people life skills that will enable them to avoid this mass marketed crap.  If you do that, advertising will become less effective.

Very good post. I am not sure about the question, but this is a great answer. (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
Neuromarketing (4.00 / 1)
And to think I used to believe the tobacco industry's viral marketing (hiring good looking college-aged people to go into bars and smoke while giving away free packs of cigs) was insidious. Neuromarketing makes that look like amateur hour. It takes us to a whole new and uncomfortable level.

I don't know how we can legally justify having tough regulations on most marketing--free speech and all that. But it's easier to imagine that our individual right to privacy could be used to prevent corporations from rummaging through our brains to see which parts light up when we look at their pretty trinkets and baubles.  

I can't imagine being able to say, "You can't market to me," but I can easily imagine saying, "Get the hell out of my mind because you don't have the right to know which batch of my neurons start glowing every time you flaunt your wares."  

This may sound nuts (0.00 / 0)
but my Wife and I were talking about how so many commercials are flashing constantly, and we agreed that the constant flashing may produce a buying effect.  If this is true, criminal charges should be filed.  ESPN is like a crash course in how to get ADD, and the car commercials just give me a headache.  

It is honestly getting so bad I usually only turn the TV on to watch specific programming on demand, and rarely channel surf except to find a ballgame.  Combined with Discovery moving from Mythbusters (very cool) to all Mike Rowe (Dirty Jobs)all the time, (not cool at all Amway jerk)we thought about ditching TV entirely.  What keeps us hanging on to cable?  Nickelodeon.  I still have a crush on The Nanny.

[ Parent ]
Are We Just Powerless? (0.00 / 0)
Marketing is commercial speech, not in any way shape or form the personal-opinion "speech" that the Constitution protects.  

Shouldn't We, the People have the POWER to decide things like this, instead of just giving up and saying we can't do it?

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson

[ Parent ]
I do not disagree (0.00 / 0)
with you, but we can not even get Congress to ban Credit Checks for jobs, a blatant method to circumvent the 1964 Civil Rights Act in my opinion.  How are we going to tell McDonald's where to stick their arches?  Formulate a plan, and I will listen.
[ Parent ]
Bann advertising on shows aimed at children (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Free Speech (4.00 / 2)
The one area the U.S. is still far more progressive then any other nation is on issues of free speech.  In England, for example, they passed a law banning anyone from saying nice things about any past terrorist attack.  (Funny aside, they couldn't come up with a definition of "terrorist" that included all the "bad" stuff and none of the "good" stuff, so they had to create a specific list.)  For most everyone in this country the very thought of banning speech makes our skin crawl.

While corporate advertising does not fall under the category of free speech (at least on anything broadcast over public air waves), I feel very uncomfortable making a law defining who can appear in various ads based on physical appearance.

Even (0.00 / 0)
Even if the ads are proven to be harmful to young women?

Who has the power in this country?  Or, at least, who SHOULD have the power?

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson

[ Parent ]
Higher principles at stake (4.00 / 1)
One of the great realizations of The Enlightenment is there are higher principles than the obvious stuff in front of our faces.

Regulating corporate advertising doesn't fall into this category, but this proposal really seems wrong to me.  The more I think of it the more I realize why.

You are suggesting some people may not work in certain jobs 100% due to the way they look.  Think about it, that is really what you just suggested.

No.  Never.  Ever.

I don't care if this specific reason is a good idea or that this would help many people.  There are far more important ideals at stake.

[ Parent ]
Stop them from brainwashing us -- institute regulations or taxes (0.00 / 0)
I definitely think it is a good idea to regulate marketing and advertising. Maybe if we called it brainwashing, people would understand how vile much of it really is and why it should be regulated. Parents should be especially sensitive to how their children are manipulated and turned into uncontrollable and unquenchable infantile consumers instead of becoming responsible adults and informed citizens.

But overcoming freedom of speech arguments will be difficult. It may actually be easier to reduce the amount of propaganda by instituting a tax on advertising, say 10% on all paid ads, and using the revenues to support public TV/radio. This would at least raise the cost of advertising and make it easier to be informed and entertained without being bombarded with insidious ads.

Taxes on advertising may be easier to implement perhaps, but of course, still difficult since every media company and advertiser -- a very powerful bunch -- would fight strongly against it. But we have to take our society back from the manipulators and propagandists and get their crap out of our minds. It will be a long process, but we have to do this.

Its a tough issue. (0.00 / 0)
I am not sure that laws could be written about manipulation. Its just too damn subjective. And When a crazy crazy gets elected (we cant be elected for ever, although today's new polls show the republicans tanking even further) they will use these laws to cut the tongues out every speaker, break the fibngers of every writer and shut down every blog like this one.

The one place this can work, and touches some of the problems you mention is this. Protecting children. Lets make advertising to children illegal. No ads on kids programs. Just sponsors. No screaming demands for some new piece of plastic, or whining demands for mayonnaise dipped deep fried fat balls with butter. "But they're gooo-0ooo-oood" moans the child who has never eaten one, and should never eat one.

What may be a more useful frame to the problem, is not altering the speech of anyone. But to insure that everyone has a chance to speak. How do we get more voices speaking more often. Obviously the internet is a big help. And there have been some progressive victories in tv and radio.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

A Comment On This From The Late Great George Harrison, Brainwashed (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I'm ok with some restrictions on marketing (0.00 / 0)
But, then, I'm also okay with the "war on drugs" to some extent, something that's generally not popular in these parts.

I believe that government ought to have some power to decide what is "good" for society and makes laws supposedly in the name of the common good even when some portion of the population thinks that they're not being harmed.

What it comes down to is that the view of human beings as wholly independent individuals capable of making their own choices in a vacuum is outdated, if it was ever accurate to begin with.  In this regard, I believe that modern liberalism should see itself as philosophically opposed to political libertarianism.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

"Neuromarketing"? (0.00 / 0)
How about we just call it what it is: mind control.
No (4.00 / 3)
Simply no. I don't trust anyone to set up and administer a Department-of-Harmful-Attitudes-And-Ideas-Which-Must-Be-Banned. It's the quickest way I know to turn a progressive into a pain in the ass, if indeed he or she wasn't one in the first place. If you can't tell the difference between mountaintop coal removal and beer advertising, I don't want you anywhere near the legislative process.
Progressives a Pain In The Ass? (0.00 / 0)
Nice subtle conservative framing.  I agree people should maintain their freedoms to be inundated with mindless
fluffs and carcinogenic toxic waste passing for food.  But nobody has the right to get into my head without my permission.  A different issue entirely.
[ Parent ]
All Marketing is Manipulative (0.00 / 0)
You're right, buddyboy, marketing and mind-rape are two different things. All marketing includes manipulation, but this stuff goes too far.

[ Parent ]
How in hell can you have a functional democracy (0.00 / 0)
if you don't believe that you're in charge of your own psychology? If you believe that anybody can put ideas in your head without your permission, let alone some clever asshole on Madison Avenue, how can you imagine yourself fit to be a citizen?

That's a serious question.

[ Parent ]
he said " turn a progressive into a " (0.00 / 0)
And he made a real point, about the crisis we have tryuing to stop some the absolute crises we face, such as coal ash global warming war health insurance, and then against that start conversations about trying to pass laws against advertising.



Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Well HOP you minimize (0.00 / 0)
the need for advertising restictions, but you must remember slick marketing created a lot of the messes we are in in the first place.  Tobacco advertising.  Ronald McDonald.  Free choice stops when the mind is no longer free.  And yes, it has been shown that a person can lose a grip over their own psychology when bombarded with a specific impression or image.  You must watch this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

[ Parent ]
I dont minimize anything. (0.00 / 0)
I was explaining the frustration about seemingly changing the topic in a crisis. There are many things worth doing. There are a few crises that must be solved.

I was trying to drain the malaria swamp, but I was up to my ass in alligators.

And on the other hand, instead of opening a box of the correctness of social engineering with speech control, why dont talk about enforcing the laws and ethics and morays we have already and protect children from advertising.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Get to the core (0.00 / 0)
Well I think the core of it is about trying to get our own power back, in a supposed democracy.  That is how we can then get the rest back.  A lot of this is going to be to get more people to recognize the degree of control that a few seem to have.  I think health care is showing it to a lot of people.  it is so obviously a choice between corporate profits and people's needs...

I don't understand why the Obama admin isn't turning a lot of it around.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson

[ Parent ]
I don't think we should target the ideas, (0.00 / 0)
just the means by which the ideas are transmitted.

Once we start talking about neurobiological techniques that can directly implant ideas into people's brains without their conscious knowledge, you are talking about mind control. Plain and simple.

And that we should regulate, for the same reason we regulate firearms--because unrestricted use would become a threat to society.

[ Parent ]
This much we can agree on (0.00 / 0)
Level the playing field by ending the conditions which make media monopolies as dominant as they are.

Mind control, as far as I'm concerned, is unproven nonsense. We all know how to influence people, it's part of the fabric of human interaction, and always has been. Unless you're determined to consider yourself a victim of forces beyond your control, though, the idea that someone, anyone, can steer you from a distance, at least with any degree of precision, is poppycock. What would be the point of politics at all if that were true?

[ Parent ]
So tobacco ads to kids is OK? (4.00 / 1)
Do you think it is OK to ban tobacco advertising to children?

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson
[ Parent ]
Ah, yes, save the children. (0.00 / 0)
I wondered how soon that would be dragged out. If you can think of a way to spare children the agonies of advertising, or pornography, or nasty language without treating adults like children, I'm all for it. No doubt there are all sorts of solutions, but the best one, it seems to me, is to let children grow up under the care of adults who aren't either a) moral monsters, or b) nervous nellies. The one thing all these child defenders of both left and right seem to forget is that children do grow up, and when they grow up, this is the world they'll have to live in, not aome alternate universe which you've created for them in their soundproof nursery.
[ Parent ]
Just bann advertising at programs aimed at children. (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
It wouldn't hurt, no (0.00 / 0)
Throwing the TV out the window wouldn't either. I remember my own parents, who didn't get a TV till I was fifteen. Of course I watched it -- some -- at friends' houses. I also read the comic books there that were banned at home, and ate the candy bars, etc., etc. I also read Mad Magazine, which was a cultural counter-force of much underestimated magnitude -- the John Stewart and Steven Colbert of its time.

What mattered more than my parents draconian counter offensives against popular culture, I think, in keeping me from being a good little consumer, was their library, which sat there, winking at me, until I dared to peek inside. The fact that this was a forbidden fruit never forbidden to me, nor foisted on me either, made it all the more delicious.

Anyway, here I am, vices and all, but the one thing I've never feared is the half-baked ideas of others. The fully-baked ones either, for that matter.

[ Parent ]
Do I have enough yeast? are you putting this back in the oven? (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
You were putting the yeast in? (4.00 / 1)
I thought I was. Uh oh!

Amazing how many anti-democratic advocacies are abroad even among putatively democratic blogs. So many Auntie No-No's, so little time.

Ah, well.... Shove it back in the oven anyway. Call it popovers.

[ Parent ]
NO its not. (4.00 / 1)
And I would bann all tobacco advertising. JUst period, and that would get support. I would ban advertising to children.

Advertising to an adult is -- as trying to get a date with a friend.

Advertising to children is -- as trying get a date with a child.

Adults should not be trying to alter children's desires for money, it serves no societal purpose.       Is evil wrapped in a false smile.

If we did not have advertising to children, what possib;e argumemt could they make to say, lets do this!


Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Advertising to children is -- as trying get a date with a child. (0.00 / 0)

Wow HousesofProgress, beautifully put !
[ Parent ]
Thanks. We all, personally, socialy and in law, have a huge morality about power imbalance (0.00 / 0)
and the rights of the innocent, but we allow a corporation, who legally has no morality as their sole objective, as any conservative will vociferously tell you, is the increase of profit, no social good, not welfare, not the good of the society, not the good of the customer, just the good of stockholders.

They go on to say, that there will be benefit later because of the "logical self interest of the buyer." In what legal tome, in what rape law, in what drinking or driving or voting regulation do we assume this logical self interest for a 6 year old.

Then we allow plastic toy manufacturers to "create demand" in the mind of an innocent. Then we allow heart attack manufactures to tell lies about taste and satisfaction, lies we all agree are lies, lies we are told is our adult responsibility to discern and remember and resist, caveat emptor.  We allow these lies to be placed into the innocent open minds of our children. Minds that otherwise are taught by parent and teacher to be open and trusting and to assume that care is intended.

And they do that, on Saturday mornings amongst happy happy cartoons full of grinning, caring loving smiling faces who  seem to telling nice stories.

If we want a big big step toward solving our nations catastrophic childhood obesity crisis, we can, we must, stop advertising to children.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Corporations should have no first amendment rights (0.00 / 0)
Of course we should ban this stuff.

Anyone here ever read The Space Merchants?

So (4.00 / 1)
You think it is okay for a law to be written that bans someone from a specific job because they are too skinny?
[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 1)
If anorexic models are shown to cause anorexia among young women, then OF COURSE it should be banned.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson
[ Parent ]
NO (4.00 / 1)
You could also say that we should ban KKK rallies.  But you would be very wrong.

Democracy is much, much more than majority rule.  

So far you haven't even attempted to discuss why it is ok for the government to regulate who is allowed to work in certain jobs based on appearance or physical characteristics.  You have only talked about this specific case.  That shows me you aren't thinking about the larger issues at all.

While it is possible I'm missing something am wrong, you aren't even attempting to convince me otherwise.  Your arguments are all at the "KKK is bad" level.  True, but irrelevant.

[ Parent ]
KKK rallies are not shown to be harming people (4.00 / 1)
Why would we ban KKK rallies?  But if it is shown that KKK rallies are harming people then OF COURSE I would say we should ban them.

Seeing anorexic models in ads IS HARMING PEOPLE.  That is the difference.  it is causing thousands of young women to become sick, and some die.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson

[ Parent ]
Actually (4.00 / 2)
Actually, a while back Europe came face-too-face with the harmful effects of allowing racist speech and they do ban rallies of KKK types.  Tens of millions of people died, and they ban it now.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson
[ Parent ]
Think harder (4.00 / 1)
They ban speech far more regularly in the rest of the world and they are wrong to do so.

Should we ban songs that seem to encourage suicide?  Who gets to decide what is harmful?  Should we ban Marilyn Manson?

No.

Should we ban fat people from ads because it makes unhealthily fat people feel better about themselves and less likely to alter their habits?

Should we only allow people in the top 50% (10%?  1%?) of physical health to be on TV or magazines at all?

No. No. No.

I'm sorry, you can't just say we should OBVIOUSLY do something without thinking of the bigger issues.  I'm sure you only want this one little, obvious change.  But NO.

[ Parent ]
Actually (4.00 / 2)
Actually maybe I would do what another commenter here suggested, only allow ads in strictly regulated spaces, where only people who agreed they want the information can see them.

In the case of situations PROVEN to cause harm to people, that should be banned entirely.  So yes, if a song can be proven to cause suicides, OF COURSE it should be banned.  (I am not aware of any songs proven to cause suicides.)

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson

[ Parent ]
So Romeo and Juliet should be banned? (4.00 / 1)
I'd bet most anything that at least one person had committed suicide partially as a result of finding Romeo and Juliet romantic.  So that should be banned?

There are books that teach you the necessary knowledge on how to build bombs and make poison.  Ban those.

And on and on and on.

Seriously, you haven't thought this through at all.

[ Parent ]
Corporate ads are not art (0.00 / 0)
Romeo and Juliet might be worth some sacrifices, but that has no bearing on corporate advertising. Advertising, IMO is not even "speech", much less free speech
[ Parent ]
Here's a Marketing Idea that will Benefit Democracy (0.00 / 0)
Ban Political Commercials.

If we can ban television and radio advertisements for hard liquor and tobacco products, we should be able to ban commercials that refer to someone who either holds an office or has filed to run for an office.  Without commercials, there will be virtually no need for those who seek to attain or retain elected office to beg for money from moneyed interests.

People can still give money to support the candidates' need for staff, flyers, yard signs, etc.  People can still write whatever they want in online and print forums.  Politicians can still be just as pro-choice or pro-life as they want to be.  Only the corrupting influence of big money will be gone.

I know, I know, I'm a crazy dreamer....

Interesting idea (0.00 / 0)
Just ban all political candidate advertising.

But also provide candidates with plenty of free time to explain to voters who they are and what they want to accomplish.

We have the power to do this.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson

[ Parent ]
Or mandate hours and hours of debate. (0.00 / 0)
I dont want to ban speech, but I do want to remove the power of large wealth from control of our debate.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.
[ Parent ]
Enlightenment (4.00 / 1)
Corporate ads are not art
Romeo and Juliet might be worth some sacrifices, but that has no bearing on corporate advertising. Advertising, IMO is not even "speech", much less free speech

Absolutely correct.  But note that none of my arguments once I thought this through have anything to do with free speech for corporations.  In fact, even my first post, made before I thought this through some more, said "While corporate advertising does not fall under the category of free speech".

I'm entirely open to the possibility I'm missing something.  Heaven knows there are enough moving parts that there is a way a law like this could be made without violating any of the freedoms I hold dear.  I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

But no one is even trying to debate at the higher level of base principles.  In fact, Dave has jumped on board with banning some other things I used an example of what would clearly cross the line.

Just think this through.  The suggestion is to pass a law that denies someone the right to hold a particular job because of the way they look.  One may think this is just about corporate ads, but this seems to be a pretty damn important line being crossed.

My Romeo and Juliet point was made because Dave already agreed to potentially ban songs for this reason:

So yes, if a song can be proven to cause suicides, OF COURSE it should be banned.

Heck, even the defense of Romeo and Juliet comes across as making a special case for Shakespeare.  Scary, scary stuff.

Everybody claims to love free speech but.... (0.00 / 0)
everybody, it seems, also wants to make an exception for something which he feels is especially pernicious. The right wants to ban Judy Blume, or Harry Potter, or Karl Marx. The left wants to ban Huckleberry Finn, or the Marlboro Man, or Ann Coulter. A plague on both their houses.

And I'm sorry, corporate advertising is speech. The means by which it's delivered, and the advantage money has in giving it more prominence that it deserves, can be legitimately addressed, but the content can't, and shouldn't be banned. Once you start down that road, sooner or later you arrive at a Commissariat of Acceptable and Unacceptable Ideas. There seem to be some commenters here who wouldn't have any qualms about such an abomination, or about serving on it either. All I can say is, be careful what you wish for.

[ Parent ]
You are trying to frame this (0.00 / 0)
You are trying to frame protecting young women from anorexia as "denying people jobs because of the way they look."  (Models who are unhealthy and the effect this has on the psychology of young women.)  

This is a straw man argument that has little to do with my point and tries to cast me as to unfair to employee rights when I say that it is harmful to young girls to see images of unhealthy women presented as an ideal.  You are saying this is unfair to the employment opportunities of anorexic models.

I am saying the companies should not be able to exploit the models and the targets by presenting these images in ways that we KNOW causes illness.

Knowingly causing illness is a crime and the European countries that have banned this are protecting people.  It is the duty of government to protect people, especially the most vulnerable, from corporate exploitation.  

If that exploitation involves using psychological manipulation of the self-esteem of young girls at exactly the age they are most vulnerable to this kind of manipulation, using imagery intended to demolish their self-image in ways that we know triggers an uncontrollable and potentially fatal psychological reaction in the targets of the ads, then it must be stopped.


--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson

[ Parent ]
Straw man (0.00 / 0)
If you honestly thinking I'm strawmanning you, I'm done here.  
[ Parent ]
Anothers opinion is not the criteria for your information (0.00 / 0)
I constantly, while campaigning, run intoi people wha say its getting hard to vote, or tghey wouldnt let me vote at the polling station or they lost my name.

"And if that's the way they want to play then I'm just not going to vote any more."

Don't stop talking because of debate style.  It is common to try and categorize debate points so as to degrade their value.

Thes are damn complex issues, I side with you on freedom of speech as a basic right. Maybe the basic right.

That right to free speech, does not extend to shouting fire in a theater. Where it can be shown that ________________ is shouting fire in a crowded theater I am willing to listen, I am willing to hear arguments and I am eager to hear court, even supreem court analysis. Thats what you are doing now. Keep it up.

As to the charge of strawmaning, I don't see it. And I don't see where Davej implied ill intended arguing on your part.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Not that anyone will read this, but (0.00 / 0)
I didn't mean I was leaving the site.  I just don't think it is worth while debating someone who thinks you are not trying to make fair arguments.  In my mind a "straw man" is by definition a dishonest argument meant to deceive.

As I stated above, I'm not 100% sure a law like this violates my fundamental principles, though I think it does.  However, I am 100% it comes close enough to warrant discussion.  

I see no evidence that Dave even knows what I'm talking about.  It is like Paul's Kegan levels, it seems like Dave is stuck in level three, which is scary because Dave seems to be a really bright guy.  The fact he had to bring down my arguement to the level of labor laws shows he just isn't getting it.  Others got it on both sides, but not Dave.  It felt like a conversation about cubes in Flatland.

[ Parent ]
We are reading, and we like it. (0.00 / 0)
LOL
As I said in the post,
Thes are damn complex issues, I side with you on freedom of speech as a basic right. Maybe the basic right.

Lets put it this way, we need for all of us to go from where we are, (right here) or we dont get to where we want to go.

I will never give up freedom of speech.

One of the reasons they 'said' they had a right to have a coup in Honduras, was the President wondered if people wanted to talk about the constitution, and people I thought I should respect said okay if that's your rule.(???) When you compare that to the dedication of the woman in Sudan I posted
Woman Facing 40 Lashes For Wearing Pants, Wears Same Clothes To Trial LIke Gandhi burning the legally required "race card" some laws demand challenge. You need to challenge bad, or badly worded good ideas, so they become good ideas.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Old thread (0.00 / 0)
I just meant no one would read it because this is such an old thread (in blog time, at least).  But I see you occasionally check "Your Comments" as well.  :-)
[ Parent ]
NO. Who is charge. I trust NO ONE. There is (0.00 / 0)
plenty of 'progressive' 'left' group think, and group think creates censorship.

censorshit is BAD. period. unless I'm in charge, since I'm the only 1 I trust.

remember when Rush was railing against NPR 16 years ago? NOW NPR repreats fascist framing in their fake ass reporting, and I have to pay for it!

--------------------------

Charge a FLAT rate for public airwave access, so I got access like NBC, and so don't you.

charge a % of the ad revenue. IF the skinny scrawny chain smoking meth adict commercial makes the most money, THEN it pays the most to be on the air.

rmm.  

It is too full o' the milk of human kindness To catch the nearest way

It is illegal in all states, nations and societies to shout fire in a crowded theater. (0.00 / 0)
Except in Ron Paul land, and Somalia.

I think Davej has wrapped the idea around an indefensible point, the right of society to socially edit speech, rather than examine where the right to free speech is already known to not aply.

It is legaly impossible in much of the untied states, to offer sexual favours for money, to offer illegal drugs for sale, to offer alcohol to children and many more, once you begin to think of them.

And the class of things that cannot be said attempt to fall within boundaries that are challenged and altered.

Even in the list above, there will be people who wonder - even protest, about the inclusion of that communication in the legally banned areas of speech.

I agree with you, speech is sacrosanct except for shouting fire in a crowded theater.

Conservatives postulate a rational logic to all citizens, and I am more than willing to accept that for the protection of discourse. I might suggest that any discussion about speech have at its base an agreement that free speech is sacrosanct and that it refers to those with logical rationality.

If you want to protect those without logical rationality, then it must be stipulated that a lot of people will object that they are logical and don't need no protecting.

Children are an obvious example of the ones we are required to protect in this paradigm.  

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Should manipulative advertising be banned? (0.00 / 0)
Should manipulative advertising be banned?

Public Sphere:

1. There is the whole issue of the private sphere
  versus the public sphere. A company can post
  a pornographic image on the internet, but is
  not allowed to post that same picture on a
  public billboard. Why? Because the only viewers
  of your internet pictures, are those who choose
  to go to that site, while people driving by
  the billboard have no choice but to see the
  pornographic picture.

  Similarly an adult bookstore can sell pornographic
  magazine within the store, but cannot put the
  same pictures in the window for people to see as
  they walk by on their public sidewalk.

  So, I would argue that banning certain images from
  the public sphere (such as pornography or frightening
  images), based on community standards as is presently
  the case, is a good thing.

2. There is also the issue of TV and radio broadcasting
  over the public airwaves. Broadcast TV and radio are
  presently regulated, and I think that is also a
  good thing.

3. I would like to see more regulation of broadcast TV
  and radio and broadcast radio, and public billboards,
  as far as their targeting of children is concerned.

  Science has established that children are even more
  susceptible to advertising than adults, and since few
  parents bother to shield their kids from advertising,
  the government (based on sound science) needs to ban
  advertising and product placement on broadcast television
  and billboards that targets children.

4. There is also the issue of anti-trust laws and
  giant media conglomerations:

http://www.metroactive.com/pap...

Private Sphere:

5. Banning just about anything in the private sphere
  is not the answer.

6. But adults should be aware that what they watch and what
  they hear does influence them. Adults should also be aware
  that young children are very naive and gullible and are
  even more influenced than adults. And adults should make
  an effort to shield those children in their care against
  manipulation and exploitation.

7. Should children be taken away from parents who do not
  protect them media manipulation? NO. Society has made
  it very clear that children are only to be taken away
  in cases of extreme violence and/or neglect.

8. Regulation of media in the public sphere to give some
  small protection to children, is very much needed.

Should We Ban Manipulative Marketing? | 58 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox