Note the arguement tends toward the ad hominem after the first paragraph,
but contains some valid points and so I left it pretty much as it was.
I could have deleted the third paragraph without substantial loss to the
gist of the arguement - but the pun was funny enough that I left it in. I'd
be particularly interested in what any non-american's might have to say
about the following.
Thanks,
Nate
> Commercial speech should be objectively truthful (Buick has the
> best results in the XYZ owner satisfaction poll) or so subjective as to
> be impossible to determine the veracity thereof (New Smego's
> minty taste is even MORE refreshing). Most recent cigarette ads
> seem simply to announce that the maker has a particular brand
> for sale. There might be some imagery attempting to suggest that
> buying this brand will make one pretty or macho or surrounded by
> pretty and macho fun-loving friends, but few...if any...claims are
> made. If an ad is truthful (or non-objective) and doesn't contain
> obscene images or language, then the government has no business
> butting in (the matter of obscenity is very venue-sensitive. What is
> appropriate for a print ad in HUSTLER may not be appropriate for
> a public billboard).
>
> This Brodie fellow seems to think that he alone can save us from
> the undue influence of advertising. What a pitiful messiah-wannabee
> this guy must be. He even comes up with a new vocabulary to attempt
> to give unwarranted credibility to his vacant notions..."meme" indeed.
> Then, [Brodie] wants to run to mommy-government to protect
> us from ourselves. No thanks. As to the notion of government's effort
> to repress what egghead-Brodie terms "harmful meme-spreading" and
> his empty-headed "It deserves to be tried" endorsement of same; he
> thus betrays his freedom-hating nature. No, it DOESN'T "deserve to be
> tried". Doing so is in clear violation of our First Amendment protections.
> These limits on government, as unfashionable as they've become for
> the would-be social engineers, were formulated by men whose intellects
> were superior to Brodie and his ilk and who had the benefit of recent
> experience living under a repressive totalitarian state.
>
> Brodie seems willing to discard vital freedoms because of alleged misuse
> by some and impose some restrictive laws based on the notion of
> "it deserves to be tried". Bullshit. If anything "deserves to be tried"
> here,
> it is Brodie and his ilk. Tried, convicted, and punished for repudiating
> the
> freedom that is their birthright as Americans.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gifford, Nathan F
> Sent: Friday, October 09, 1998 4:02 PM
> Any thoughts on limiting commercial speech as recommended below?
>
> Seems similar to local anti-gun legislation .... and the arguements are
> the same.
> Since people are stupid and susceptible to hurting themselves SOCIETY
> should
> protect them.
>
> I wouldn't mind posting well reasoned arguements to the memetics list ...
> particularly
> since you two are the ones who infected me with the "Get Smart ... for the
> children's sake"
> meme.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Brodie [SMTP:richard@brodietech.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 08, 1998 1:37 PM
> To: Meme Update Subscribers
> Subject: virus: Meme Update #23: Tobacco Advertising Update
>
> Meme Update #23
>
> In this issue:
> Tobacco Advertising Update
> Memetics Data
> State of the World Forum
>
> Tobacco Advertising Update
>
> The political fight continues over banning tobacco advertising. On
> September
> 18, 1998, The Board of Health in King County, Washington -- Seattle and
> environs -- voted 10-3 to allow only black and white text on all publicly
> visible tobacco advertisements. They completely banned any tobacco
> advertising within 1000 feet of a school or playground.
>
> A similar measure in neighboring Pierce County awaits an appeal to the 9th
> US Circuit Court of Appeals after being upheld by a federal district judge
> last November.
>
> Pleasantly, only one member of the board parroted the inane belief that
> tobacco advertising doesn't do much to influence minors to smoke. I guess
> she thinks that either minors are less susceptible to advertising than
> adults, or that American companies are run by the world's stupidest people
> who pour billions and billions annually into a marketing mechanism that
> "doesn't do much." THINK!
>
> Advertising is a way for commercial interests to plant their memes in
> people
> with varying degrees of penetration. The techniques used are subtle or
> obvious (see Key's book "The Age of Manipulation," available from the
> Amazon.com Memetics Bookstore http://www.brodietech.com/rbrodie/books.htm
> )
> but they are effective. Since our economy is based on commerce, we tend to
> let businesses use any means they want short of outright fraud to promote
> their wares. But government prohibition of meme-spreading of harmful
> products is far less intrusive than laws against self-destructive behavior
> itself. It deserves to be tried.
>
> The Supreme Court has ruled in the past (44 Liquormart) that for
> government
> to regulate commercial speech, it must prove that such regulation will
> achieve the government's stated purpose. Since it let stand a similar
> ordinance in Baltimore last year and recently denied the Food and Drug
> Administration (FDA) authority to regulate tobacco advertising, the Court
> seems happy with this kind of local regulation for now. Meanwhile, for
> some
> anti-tobacco ads and other resources, see http://world.std.com/~batteryb/
>