According to the First Amendment, the government “technically” cannot abridge the freedom of speech. Pomeraz and Adler discuss the increased protection that the government puts on “commercial speech”, yet it cannot be protected if the information it is promoting is “false, misleading, or relating to illegal activity” (40). To some, targeting food advertisements to children falls into at least one of these categories. The subject becomes touchy when we have to weigh the implied rights of the advertiser versus the health and safety of the public. In our society it appears as though the advertisers rights weigh supreme over the ethics of health. However, as some individuals including Gary Ruskin of Commercial Alert argue in the article Advertising Overload, “Commercial speech shouldn’t be protected under the First Amendment, because corporations aren’t people.” The corporations are businesses that run off of money, so perhaps the way they are accommodated should be
According to the First Amendment, the government “technically” cannot abridge the freedom of speech. Pomeraz and Adler discuss the increased protection that the government puts on “commercial speech”, yet it cannot be protected if the information it is promoting is “false, misleading, or relating to illegal activity” (40). To some, targeting food advertisements to children falls into at least one of these categories. The subject becomes touchy when we have to weigh the implied rights of the advertiser versus the health and safety of the public. In our society it appears as though the advertisers rights weigh supreme over the ethics of health. However, as some individuals including Gary Ruskin of Commercial Alert argue in the article Advertising Overload, “Commercial speech shouldn’t be protected under the First Amendment, because corporations aren’t people.” The corporations are businesses that run off of money, so perhaps the way they are accommodated should be