Misleading cotton ads banned in U.K. 3

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Wolverine Posted 4:42 am
   13 Mar 2008

   Right On!This shows the value of NOT having a First Amendment, which in the U.S. has been used far more for corporate and general business propaganda for the past several decades than for any good.  The ideal situation would be to remove First Amendment protections for commercial speech and for any statements that are provably false, but overall the Earth would be better off without a First Amendment at all if it's going to be used the way it has in the U.S.

   Permalink

2. 

   edarnold41 Posted 3:59 am
   14 Mar 2008

   ?Wolverine?May I respectfully suggest that our friend Wolverine lay off the pipe before publishing opinions such as the previous. Trashing the Bill of Rights because you don't approve of Big Business Propaganda (as opposed to the Propaganda that you agree with) is uncalled for: when everyone seems to be suffering from the fear that Government is taking away our rights, getting rid of any part of the protection that does exist against governmental intrusion seems, well,....mental.
   Just my humble opinion.

   Permalink

3. 

   Wolverine Posted 5:51 am
   14 Mar 2008

   To Edarnold41The First Amendment was never meant to protect commercial speech.  Read the Federalist Papers.  This, combined with the corporate media, neither of which existed at the time the First Amendment was written, have caused far more harm than the First Amendment has caused good.  Let's have a little reality check here:
   With 300 million people in the U.S. and most people getting their information from TV, what most people know is what corporate propagandists want them to know.  Talking to a small number of people by other means is almost meaningless in comparison.  The internet has made some inroads addressing this problem, but the fact remains that if you can't get on commercial TV, no one knows of your views.  For example, most people in the SF Bay Area, the most progressive large area in the U.S., don't even know who Dennis Kucinich is, let alone what he stands for.  This is because he was censored by the corporate media which also prevented him from participating in some of the presidential debates.
   So in this context, the First Amendment does far more harm allowing mass dissemination of propaganda and brainwashing than it does good by allowing the tiny voices of dissent.  Obviously, it would be best if the First Amendment were amended to exclude protection for commercial speech and provable falsehoods, but the next best thing would be to eliminate it altogether and craft new laws similar to those in the progressive countries in western Europe.
   If you have an argument to the contrary, I'm happy to entertain it, but please refrain from future name-calling or other irrelevant comments.

   Permalink