The perspectives
of advertising and children are becoming an instrument to regulate the food
industries as health is the issue. The discuss for healthier vs. for fundamental
rights to promote, which leads to a healthier diet or to regulate the
foundation of free speech. Margo G. Wootan and Robert Liodice each have a side.
Yet, when Margo G. Wootan states in, Regulating Food Advertising to Children;
“Parents bear the primary responsibility for feeding their children.” This made
his argument weak.
So I
will elaborate upon Robert Liodice and the article, “Advertising and Freedom of
Speech: Beware of the Food Nanny.” The best argument that stands in is the
fundamental right of the first Amendment. Free speech is the very core value
that gives personal responsibility and choice. This is the nature of having the
right to speak. While, Americans can give up a little for the price of
regulation, it becomes inevitable to bear and see it taken away.
Obesity
is a problem curable Liodice states. Furthermore, our freedoms shouldn’t be in
fridge upon a problem that can be fixed. Government shouldn’t be the one to
take our free speech. The first Amendment is a valuable one.
I agree, Wootan’s argument is weak compared to Liodice’s. Wootan wants the government to regulate what children see in food ads just because Wootan believes that these ads are what are making the children obesity rates increase. Liodice argues that this is not ethical and it should not be implemented into the government system. If the regulating of food advertisement to children is accepted, then it is a big violation of our freedom of speech as Liodice said. If this was accepted into our system, it can lead to other things being violated as well. If one rule is accepted, then other things may be considered as well resulting into having no First Amendment Rights left.
ReplyDelete