Skip to main content

Commercials, Cars and Lies

Commercial speech has always been somewhat of a problematic topic around the world. The fact that the main goal behind commercial speech is persuasive, it makes the sheer thought of commercial speech intimidating. Large corporations with the power to put words and images in front of millions of viewers that are not always necessarily truthful, and there is nothing that we can do to stop it. Except for maybe throw our phones and computers in a lake and close our eyes and ears ever time we  go into a public space. It is referenced in the reading that "Alexander Meiklejohn, argued that commercial speech is less deserving of constitutional protection than is political speech, because "mere advertising" is not essential to self-government" (Tedford and Herbeck, Pg. 212) This comes as no surprise, as the history of commercial speech is not the greatest.
Fairly recently, commercial speech has taken another low blow. A large automobile manufacture, Volkswagen has been in the news for none of the right reasons. In 2015, Volkswagen planted "defeat devices" in many of their  diesel automobiles, in order to avoid scrutiny for the Environmental Protection Agency. These devices falsified the real emission results, making them look much better than they actually were. The environment is obviously something that many countries around the world care about, and false commercial speech does not help us in any way. This scandal lead to the recall of over 10 million Volkswagen cars between the US, UK, Europe and Germany. Not only were the environmental effects of this scandal detrimental, but the economic effect was a heavy burden as well. This lead to over 10 million people without cars for at least some period of time. It just goes to show how harmful commercial speech can be and how careful we need to be when consuming media.

Hotten, Russell. “Volkswagen: The Scandal Explained.” BBC News, BBC, 10 Dec. 2015, www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772.

Comments

  1. I think commercial speech was part of VW's issue. The company definitely misled consumers, people probably bought the car assuming it met the Clean Air Act's emission standard-- which it did not. But the larger issue is that the purpose of these defeat devices was to hide that these cars violated the law. The defeat devices were used to circumvent regulation. The device would detect when the EPA was conducting emissions tests and would lower the car's emissions so it did not exceed the limit, but once people were actually driving them the emission level exceeded the limit, apparently to improve acceleration and torque according to the New York TImes. So, I think this was less of an issue about commercial speech as it was just an illegal practice.

    If VW had advertised these diesel cars as meeting, or emitting less, than the EPA's limit-- if they had made that the car's selling point-- then I think commercial speech would be even more relevant to this situation. But I think commercial speech is an interesting way to look at this scandal, as it is a perspective that was not really explored.

    Source:
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/international/vw-diesel-emissions-scandal-explained.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree that commercial speech is something that we need to be careful about when consuming it in the media. It isn't completely protected to the degree of other speech under the First Amendment, because it isn't really serving the greater good of the people. Instead, its serving the greater good of large corporations. They can essentially, twist words or try to lie in their advertising, all of this in order for people to buy their products. 
    Volkswagen lied in the media in order to sell their cars. This is why commercial speech isn't protected as much under the First Amendment, because it is tricking consumers. Volkswagen lied in order to sell more cars and make more money, regardless if it was dishonoring the EPA rules. It even made emission well over the EPA limit, which is very toxic for the environment and nonetheless, illegal(Guess). It is scary to believe that there are a lot of companies our there doing similar things like lying to the general public because they want to sell more products, especially when that has a lot of negative consequences. I agree that commercial speech should not be protected as much under the First Amendment, because lying would become much more acceptable if it was.

    https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/09/volkswagens-emissions-cheating-scandal-has-a-long-complicated-history/

    ReplyDelete

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...

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...

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 ...