Skip to main content

(#5) Weighing the Value of Advertising

It seems like one main concern is whether our traditional notions of "expression" are compromised by private interests. I think this assessment is fair, but my takeaway from this is that the intent does not matter. Even though a Marlboro advertisement---assuming it qualifies as non-deceptive---is advocating the use of cigarettes for example, which has negative implications for public health, you could probably argue the advertisement communicates some kind of message/idea the public can make good of. Sure, less value as a step to truth, but there can still be value I suppose. I want to reiterate one of the chapter's questions: is commercial speech necessary to the democratic process? Some advertisements definitely have merit to them, but at the same time, I have doubts as I consider all the bad advertisements I've seen in recent memory.
Something that commonly is seen as of low social value is sex advertising, and this ties into obscenity a little. While sex is more commonly accepted as natural and essential in private, in the public space such as an advertisement, it's generally a different animal---we generally consider sex scandalous, sinful, dirty, etc. Even mild Calvin Klein ads are hard to defend as valuable (and there are definitely more sexual ads out there that I don't know should be posted here), as they promote/normalize unhealthy lifestyles which can lead to reduced self-esteem, objectification of women, stereotyping, elitism, etc.. Is there really anything of legitimate social value embedded here? On the other hand, suggestive ads like the one below use sex as grounds to their argument and do have a strong message/positive persuasive purpose. With sex ads increasingly becoming pervasive and sexual, it'll be interesting to see how we navigate the threshold between "a little suggestiveness is okay" and "this is pornography" as advertisers grow more bold in their content.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more