Currently I believe our nation suffers from delusions when it comes to free speech rights and who should get them, by allowing big drug companies direct to consumer advertising they have destroyed the industry of drug research where it is not readily marketable (perhaps because such a drug may be used in lower amounts because they actually destroy the illness or problem), and chronic (requiring a dependency on a certain medication), and yet the government, and advocate groups are unable to challenge the drug companies because they hide behind the idea that they should have free speech rights to say what they wish about their products in the form of advertisements.
Should corporations and companies have free speech rights at all?
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
I'm not "up on" the drug industry and maybe shouldn't get into this, but here are a few points of concern that come to mind:
1.) Do not consumers have a right to at least hear what any company want to say about its product? I would be afraid that those appointed to decide what any company may or may not say could be persuaded to favour certain companies and products over others, just as, by way of example, the media favours certain political candidates over others.
2.) Do not consumers have the responsibility to study the adverts and to decide for themselves whether or not to use any product? How far can we let government go in "protecting" people from misleading adverts?
3.) Who should monitor the advertising of the drug companies, or of any company, for that matter?
4.) Who exercises the most control over whom? Big business over government, or government over big business? I broach this issue because of government restriction on sales of medications, and the campaign to shut down the "natural remedies" business.
5.) I think "speech" should only be controlled in cases of libel and/or slander. I've seen a lot of misinformation and disinformation dispensed by the media over the years. All too often misinformation and disinformation influences public opinion and action. Once in a while perpetrators of false info get caught, like the rigged exploding Ford Pinto (I think it was) gas tank incident.
Should corporations and companies have free speech rights at all?
--Ray Short answer, Yes. First off, the supreme court as it currently sits will never let you muzzle businesses. Second, do we really want to limit the freedoms of one group or another simply because we find the practice distasteful? Because if we do, don't be surprised if those same limits get placed on you someday.
Should corporations and companies have free speech rights at all?
--Ray Short answer, Yes. First off, the supreme court as it currently sits will never let you muzzle businesses. Second, do we really want to limit the freedoms of one group or another simply because we find the practice distasteful? Because if we do, don't be surprised if those same limits get placed on you someday.
I actually think that this is a very important question - should corporate entities be given the same constitutional protections that people get? I'm not sure. It's not like we're saying that one class of human is better than another (we're all children of our Heavenly Father, after all). Corporations are legal fictions. A corporation does not have a mind, feelings, etc. It only exists to provide a governing structure for a company and protect the shareholders from lawsuits. Do the officers of the corporation have freedom of speech? Sure. But I'm not so sure that that's a freedom that extends to the corporation, which is a thing consisting of words on paper. Everything else, such as buildings, are things owned by that fictional entity. They do not make up the entity themselves. Plus, we already accept certain limits on speech. A corporation, for instance, does not have the right to say that their product is guaranteed to get rid of mutant squirrels if the squirrels are just going to laugh at you while sitting on your windowsill and inhaling the product.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Corporations are legal fictions. A corporation does not have a mind, feelings, etc. It only exists to provide a governing structure for a company and protect the shareholders from lawsuits. That is not entirely accurate. A corporation can be as simple as one person who incorporates their business in order to protect their personal assets from the risk of liability a sole proprietor runs. Shareholders of a publicly owned corporation can not be sued for the mistakes of the corporation they own stock in. Officers of and managers in any corporation can be sued for the mistakes of the corporation though, regardless of the type of corporation it is set up as, but the legal structure is there to limit the amount of personal liability they hold in relation to the corporate legal entity.
A corporation, for instance, does not have the right to say that their product is guaranteed to get rid of mutant squirrels if the squirrels are just going to laugh at you while sitting on your windowsill and inhaling the product. Sure they do, as long as it is not illegal to say that. Is it in their best interest to? Maybe not. And, like it or not, the only way to make corporations not say things that are misleading or less than true or out right false is to get the government involved. Afterall, the government is the one who has to enforce any laws concerning false advertising or misleading financial statements...
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
In my case my dad owns 100% of the corporation for the family business. Should he not be able to spend the corporations dollars on the issue or issues of his choice? As cat pointed out there is still liability under truth in advertising laws for untrue statements about a product you are selling. If you say tomacolatte causes hair to regrow on balding men, then it had better work or you will be civily liable. Of course since it is true there is no danger of civil litigation being successful.
The courts have found that businesses and organzations enjoy the benefits of the free speech clause of the constitution which is why many of the campaign finance laws have been struck down so the precedent is already in place. In the case of drug companies, both doctors and patients have a duty to research the claims of the drug company to make sure the drug is right for treating the patient. The biggest problem though is that people go in and demand name brand drug X because they saw it on T.V. when the generic drug would work fine. In this case is the consumer duped by the drug company, or simply making a free market choice. I buy Walmart brand Tylenol while others only will by the actual name brand Tylenol. Are they being duped by marketing? Should Tylenol be forced not to run their commercials because the generic brand works just as good?
I have a problem muzzling any organization or business simply because we do not agree with them. These same restrictions could easilly be applied to the church or one of it's corporate entities for a number of reasons, one being that we cannot prove the existance of God so thus our Ads are misleading people. Taken to the extreme free speech then could become a victim of political correctness because the speaker just happens to be a corporation or organization. I'm not ready to go down that road, even if I dissagree with a corporation or organization's message. Currently, their are people posting videos of themselves renouncing religion on an athiest web site. I think what they are doing is dispicable but I would never want there to be a restriction on their right to do that.
So should companies be free to advertise whatever they wish wherever they wish, under the guise of free speech?
Yes, but freedom to say what you want doesn't necessarilly mean you won't be liable for criminal and civil penalties. Otherwise, those same restrictions can be applied to the church. I don't think we want that. I also am against the FCC bringing back the fairness doctrine. Want to discuss that one?
And see this is where I think you go into ninny-ville... I just think that some sensible limitations on companies are not a bad thing. I mean there's something creepy about a drug company selling the latest cure for "erectile dysfunction" on Cartoon Network...
--Ray
__________________
I'm not slow; I'm special. (Don't take it personally, everyone finds me offensive. Yet somehow I manage to live with myself.)
more and more kids are being left with Grandpa and Grandma these days... and if Grandpa is watching the cartoon network with the kiddies... yeah you are right. CREEPY!
__________________
no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing... the truth of God will go forth till it has penetrated every website, sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished and the great Jehovah shall say the work is done
rayb wrote: And see this is where I think you go into ninny-ville... I just think that some sensible limitations on companies are not a bad thing. I mean there's something creepy about a drug company selling the latest cure for "erectile dysfunction" on Cartoon Network...
rayb wrote: And see this is where I think you go into ninny-ville... I just think that some sensible limitations on companies are not a bad thing. I mean there's something creepy about a drug company selling the latest cure for "erectile dysfunction" on Cartoon Network...
--Ray
That is not as creepy as some of the cartoons they show... Of course, we can start singing louder that we'll all be dead when the log rolls over if Spongebob characters start doing ED ads...
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
Either I'm an old fuddy duddy or the cartoons they have nowadays are much lower quality than what I watched growing up. Then again, maybe I shouldn't be talking. I watched Robotech and TransorZ.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
Both of those were great cartoons. I watched the entire Robotech series a couple years ago on DVD. Good memories. Robotech was actually three different Japanese cartoons sliced and diced together to make a completely new series. One of the series was called Macross and another one I believe was called Southern Cross. I was addicted to that show. Macross actually had some pretty racy scenes in it so I don't recommend going out and watching it. Those shows were great. I don't even understand the cartoons today. The animals look like mutants. Transor Z was pretty good but the girl robots/machine's missles were a little strange. I got hooked on Voltron later but then that show got stupid after a while. Thanks for the memories arbi!! Robotech, the first cartoon soap for kids!
I was fascinated when Lion-O had to defeat the other Thundercats in their area of specialty in order to earn his place as leader.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen! - Samuel Adams
I preferred sophistaced cartoons... Popeye, Tom & Jerry, Loonie Tunes, Bugs Bunny, Flintstones, et al... Yes, I learned all my charm, wit, and great ability to get along with people from them. Hence, my current appreciation for SpongeBob and Ed, Edd, and Eddie...
Couldn't stand Speed Racer (thought it was dumb), and though I watched it from time to time, G-Force was pretty stupid in my mind... I wasn't into the super hero type cartoons either.
__________________
It seems to me the only thing you've learned is that Caesar is a "salad dressing dude."
I was fascinated when Lion-O had to defeat the other Thundercats in their area of specialty in order to earn his place as leader.
Oh that was a great show and that Cheatara was quite the looker for a cartoon character. That series where he had to earn his place to become their leader was great. I especially liked when he had to sneak into Mumras tomb and fight him as the final challenge. I also like the episode where Mumra got X Caliber and was fighting the Sword of Omans. Great show. Of course I was hooked on GI Joe. I had a whole bunch of the action figures and vehicles. Some of them are now worth big time $$$ of course I blew the good ones with firecrackers like Snake Eyes and Major Flint. I had all the key good guy characters but only a couple of the bad guys like the ninja and the evil twin brothers. Now I'm dating myself. I also wish I had those Transformers still.
Afterall, the government is the one who has to enforce any laws concerning false advertising or misleading financial statements...
