4 ms·

While I can't speak for the UK, the US has a small hurdle to bans on particular kinds of speech: the First Amendment. Add to that the first section of the Fourt

While I can't speak for the UK, the US has a small hurdle to bans on particular kinds of speech: the First Amendment. Add to that the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment (i.e. the Equal Protection Clause.) Alcohol producers have as much right to advertise as, say, someone selling chocolate bars (a 'sinful,' sugary food) or bacon (for all its alleged carcinogens) or prescription drugs (some of which have potentially lethal side-effects,) so it'd be tough to single them out for suppression. Not that Americans haven't tried using later constitutional amendments to prohibit things they don't like...

kelnos 5y ago
Not sure 1A is absolute here; there are many restrictions on advertising in the US around tobacco, at least.
- atypicaluser 5y ago
  You'll note that, while 'there are many restrictions,' there is no outright federal ban on tobacco advertising--were it possible, why not do it? I also wonder if there's more to tobacco advertising then meets the eye: unlike alcohol manufacturers, Big Tobacco doesn't seem interested in challenging current restrictions to selling their product. And if they aren't interested, that says more about Big Tobacco than the First Amendment. But it's hard for me to say as I'm no expert on the tobacco industry.
  - elijaht 5y ago
    > You'll note that, while 'there are many restrictions,' there is no outright federal ban on tobacco advertising--were it possible, why not do it? Not super familiar with specifics around the restrictions because I can't remember the last time I saw a ad for tobacco; meanwhile I have seen 10+ alcohol ads today. I would say the restrictions effectively ban tobacco advertising I agree with your point; from skimming Wikipedia [1] I would argue that restrictions were gradually imposed through acts of Congress and I would imagine largely uncontested by Big Tobacco because they lacked leverage due to the series of scandals involving them. I think you are right that the major alcohol brands would fight back largely because they don't have their hands behinds their back [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nicotine_marketing#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nicotine_marketi...
tayo42 5y ago
American obsession with the 1st amendment is so odd. It doesn't allow for any reasonable discussion of nuance of speech. But, i think there is precedent for advertising, there are restrictions on tobacco advertising. I don't see why it can't be extended to other things that are advertised.
- atypicaluser 5y ago
  > American obsession with the 1st amendment is so odd. It doesn't allow for any reasonable discussion of nuance of speech. Who defines 'reasonable'? As the federal government can't involve itself (which is at the heart of this so-called obsession,) the participants in the discussion will have to determine that for themselves. And if they can't agree on what is 'reasonable'? > restrictions on tobacco advertising There are restrictions, a brief history of which can be found at Truth Initiative[0]. I wonder, though, if these restrictions remain in place because no one in Big Tobacco will challenge them? Especially if these same restrictions help to keep smaller players out of the market... [0] https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-industry-marketing/what-do-tobacco-advertising-restrictions-look-today https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-indus...
  - tayo42 5y ago
    Idk why you picked on the word reasonable. But your proving my point by attempting to shut down the discussion already In reality the government is already discussing what is protected and what isn't. Free speech is an illusion. Otherwise we wouldn't have exceptions to free speech. There wouldn't an fcc if it it was truly free. I think we should be explicit about what is protected and what isn't. We want to protect the expression of criticism of our government. I don't think we should be making choices about how society functions based off of ambiguous tweet sized one liners. This site your commenting on has higher expectations, maybe our bill of rights should too. Is advertising really speech? It's ideas with the intent to manipulate people, commercial propaganda. What is speech, maybe we should define that better. It could be the ideas and opinions of individuals. Its a mistake to provide the same protections to a corporation. There's nuance to speech, the 1st amendment is ambiguous. The intent is protect people, government exists to protect people. The rest of the world is successful without a almost religious devotion to free speech, there's no reason why the us can't, if anything it's detrimental to our society.

kelnos 5y ago

Not sure 1A is absolute here; there are many restrictions on advertising in the US around tobacco, at least.

atypicaluser 5y ago
You'll note that, while 'there are many restrictions,' there is no outright federal ban on tobacco advertising--were it possible, why not do it? I also wonder if there's more to tobacco advertising then meets the eye: unlike alcohol manufacturers, Big Tobacco doesn't seem interested in challenging current restrictions to selling their product. And if they aren't interested, that says more about Big Tobacco than the First Amendment. But it's hard for me to say as I'm no expert on the tobacco industry.
- elijaht 5y ago
  > You'll note that, while 'there are many restrictions,' there is no outright federal ban on tobacco advertising--were it possible, why not do it? Not super familiar with specifics around the restrictions because I can't remember the last time I saw a ad for tobacco; meanwhile I have seen 10+ alcohol ads today. I would say the restrictions effectively ban tobacco advertising I agree with your point; from skimming Wikipedia [1] I would argue that restrictions were gradually imposed through acts of Congress and I would imagine largely uncontested by Big Tobacco because they lacked leverage due to the series of scandals involving them. I think you are right that the major alcohol brands would fight back largely because they don't have their hands behinds their back [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nicotine_marketing#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_nicotine_marketi...

tayo42 5y ago

American obsession with the 1st amendment is so odd. It doesn't allow for any reasonable discussion of nuance of speech. But, i think there is precedent for advertising, there are restrictions on tobacco advertising. I don't see why it can't be extended to other things that are advertised.

atypicaluser 5y ago
> American obsession with the 1st amendment is so odd. It doesn't allow for any reasonable discussion of nuance of speech. Who defines 'reasonable'? As the federal government can't involve itself (which is at the heart of this so-called obsession,) the participants in the discussion will have to determine that for themselves. And if they can't agree on what is 'reasonable'? > restrictions on tobacco advertising There are restrictions, a brief history of which can be found at Truth Initiative[0]. I wonder, though, if these restrictions remain in place because no one in Big Tobacco will challenge them? Especially if these same restrictions help to keep smaller players out of the market... [0] https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-industry-marketing/what-do-tobacco-advertising-restrictions-look-today https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-indus...
- tayo42 5y ago
  Idk why you picked on the word reasonable. But your proving my point by attempting to shut down the discussion already In reality the government is already discussing what is protected and what isn't. Free speech is an illusion. Otherwise we wouldn't have exceptions to free speech. There wouldn't an fcc if it it was truly free. I think we should be explicit about what is protected and what isn't. We want to protect the expression of criticism of our government. I don't think we should be making choices about how society functions based off of ambiguous tweet sized one liners. This site your commenting on has higher expectations, maybe our bill of rights should too. Is advertising really speech? It's ideas with the intent to manipulate people, commercial propaganda. What is speech, maybe we should define that better. It could be the ideas and opinions of individuals. Its a mistake to provide the same protections to a corporation. There's nuance to speech, the 1st amendment is ambiguous. The intent is protect people, government exists to protect people. The rest of the world is successful without a almost religious devotion to free speech, there's no reason why the us can't, if anything it's detrimental to our society.