Do You Think Peta's Ad Should've Been Banned From The SuperBow

[dadmonson]

You Can see the ad here at...

http://www.peta.org

People say that you wouldn't want your child seeing this commercial because it is so racy. Do you think it should've been banned? Why or why not? Do you think ABC just banneded it because they were afraid of getting fined by the government? If so then does that change your opinion?

Edited February 19, 2009 by dadmonson

[DavidV]

Do you think we should condemn a German television station that refuses to air Nazi propaganda because their government outlawed the Nazi party?

[Jake_Ellison]

I think that from time to time the networks should test for where the limit is, instead of having their lawyers impose even stricter limits on their Programming Departments than the FCC requires.

I doubt that the FCC would've even tried to go after that ad, especially now that Bush is out of office.

Obviously, ABC doesn't have a problem airing ads for PETA, so they banned it because of the "sexual"(even though there was nothing explicitly sexual about it) content. One of the many reasons why I don't watch TV. It's lame.

That said, I would never do business with PETA, so in the end the answer is no, they shouldn't have aired that particular ad, but for different reasons.

[Craig24]

This is the wrong question. The question should be "Who decides what programming is permitted on television?"

We all know the answer.

[Capitalism Forever]

The government has a legitimate function in banning ads that make fraudulent claims, and we may very well have a case of that here. (Or if there really has been a study that "found" vegetarians have better sex, then that study is a fraud itself.)

[Greebo]

The government has a legitimate function in banning ads that make fraudulent claims, and we may very well have a case of that here. (Or if there really has been a study that "found" vegetarians have better sex, then that study is a fraud itself.)

But false advertising pertains to products and services being sold, does it not? Doesn't fraud require a transaction?

PETA is pushing a political agenda and as warped, twisted, and irrational as it is, it's a freedom of speech issue in my mind.

Heck - ban PETA's ad and next up we'll be banning all political ads.

Wait...maybe I should rethink my position...

[Capitalism Forever]

But false advertising pertains to products and services being sold, does it not? Doesn't fraud require a transaction?

I am not sure what the legal terminology is, but I don't think there is a right to make false claims about concrete facts. Freedom of speech means you can express stupid opinions, you can spread irrational ideas, and you can make arbitrary statements--all of which are appeals to the listener to consider adopting a belief, which he can then reason about and choose to accept or reject. But a statement about a concrete fact, such as the claim that a certain study has been made and had a given result, implies that you are familiar with the fact and are offering to transfer your familiarity to the listener--which means that if you have not actually observed the fact, then you're making a dishonest offer. (In a sense, it is this transfer of factual data that is the "transaction.")

Of course, if somebody makes such a factual claim, you can still choose whether or not to believe her, just like you can always choose whether or not to trust any person offering you a trade to be honest. But in a civilized society, it shouldn't be necessary for you to do a background check on everyone you do business with. If someone is offering to sell you food, you should be able to presume that they are honest and what they are offering is indeed food and not poison--and if it does turn out to be poison, you can seek legal redress. Similarly, if someone is offering you factual information, you should be able to rely on it not being a lie.

The quality, taste, and nutritional value of the food are another matter, of course, as is any interpretation or abstractions drawn from the facts that are being claimed. In this respect, it is completely "buyer beware," and if you don't like the food you bought, all you can do is find another seller next time--and if your life is not enhanced by the ideas you accepted, all you can do is reconsider them.

Now, what would happen in a rational society with regard to this PETA ad?

• If the society is 100% rational, PETA wouldn't exist at all.
  
• Even if PETA did exist, they probably wouldn't be able to afford an advertisement of this kind.
  
• Even if they could afford it, the station would probably refuse to air it.
  
• Even if the station did not refuse, most people would probably just ignore it.
  

So this makes it unlikely to the power of four that the issue would arise in the first place. If someone did want to expose them, he could simply ask PETA to name the studies in question; if PETA refused, as they probably would, he could go public with the story and discredit them. If PETA were dumb enough to admit that there were no studies and they had made the whole thing up, he would then have a legal case against them.

[Jake_Ellison]

There's nothing rational about having the government decide what is either rational or true.

Reason is the faculty of each individual, and every individual uses his own rational faculty to decide what he considers true.

The government's only job is to make sure that individuals don't use force to impose their truth on other individuals, but instead that the market and ultimately reality decide what the truth is.

Fraud is a form of force, when two parties sign a contract or perform a transaction, and one of the parties either refuses to fulfill the agreement, or misrepresents himself or the products offered in the contract/transaction.

Being irrational on TV, or even lying on TV, is not fraud. I'm sure that even in a laissez-faire Capitalist society, there would be plenty of irrationality. Not to mention the fact that people, no matter how rational, are not infallible. If we were, there would be no need for freedom and rights, we would just need a law that says everyone has to be rational, and all our problems would be solved.

The freedom to espouse all ideas, right or wrong, is the cornerstone of a successful human society, because humans aren't perfect: sometimes we are wrong, and we can't know for sure who's right in advance. Basically, we need those who we think are wrong to be given the same chances to prove themselves we have, just in case.

Unfortunately, that's not possible in a tyranny of the majority. It would also be impossible in a tyranny of the most rational people, if that were even achievable. (it is not, because it would require force, and reason tends to lose when the rules involve force)

Edited February 20, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Space Patroller]

In the first place, the claim is a fraud by being irrelevent to PETA. It's jusst a teaser. PETA is supposed to be abouut the proper treatment of animals. This is just a sensationlist non-sequitur. On a highter level. Animal Rights is a fraud so Animal Rights activists are either fraudulant or insane. Letting them do their thing in a public forum is only allowing mischief to happen to no good end and it runs the risk of granting credibility to, at best, whackjobs which suits the leftist media controllers perfectly well.

Now there is another issue. MIxed Age audiences. Many, if not most parents do not wish children below a certain age to be concerned with sex. We are a pluralistic society and this kind of thing is a middle finger stuck in the faces of a healthy and socially legitimate minority. Other parents may wish to control the time and place in which their children are introduced to sex. They have that right. Beyond that do we really need every issue to be sexualozed to the point where the Public Square is dominated by rutting animals that look vaguely humanoid, or have a sexual message attached to everything?

It is said amog libertarians that "A person's right to swing his fist ends where another persons nose begins" Actaully it should be "A person's right to swing his fist ands just short of the distance of another to swing his". This is the basis of the concept of freedom from religion, meaning that one can live free of being proselytized

The issue of banning something is complex. having been abused by the users of cell phones, I could support a ban on non-business ownership of them. You don't give a child an Uzi and there is a ban against 6-year-olds driving. How do you stop the incompetent or uncaring from riding roughshod over decent folk?

This is the area of Nuisence and Disturbing the Peace. In a city this could be different from out in the country. In a city, anyone loitering on the street at midnight is up to no good. Out in the sticks If you're out on your property at 1 in the morning you're a threat to nobody. In fact, look at the amount of crime we have had since teenage curfews were dropped. an 18 year old is just not compentent to make these kinds of decisions and can put himself and others in danger.

This may change with times and conditions. If the cell phone situation was is it is now when I was 15 and I told the uncle who raised me that I wanted a cell phone. He'd say "OK, I'll have the cops put you in jail with a telephone; there's your cell phone. Do you think I'm Santa Clause? Besides you've got no business with one". Any perents who gave their kids those things would be considered bad parents. and if grownups had them, they would be used infrequently and not for crapyap as is done 90% of the time today. But then, the grownups ran things.

[Space Patroller]

There's nothing rational about having the government decide what is either rational or true.

Reason is the faculty of each individual, and every individual uses his own rational faculty to decide what he considers true.

The governemt does have the responsibility to pass judgemetn on what is and is not true. Also in the Objectivist view. the governmen is charged with prohibiting fraud as well as force.

To do this, the governemt must know when to act and when it may not. This implies that the government must, by the nature of knowing when to act or not, make a call on the truth of falsehood and when force is being initiated by a party against another and this is metaphysical. i.e. inherent in the nature of the world for prohibiting force or fraud or retaliating against them. How could the government ban something is is forbidden to recognize?

If the governmen is charged with barring force and fraud, and by nature needs to recognize them to know when they occur and target their perpetrators, then it needs the freedom to make the call and the judgements and decisions that this call entails. Unless you believe that this comes from God who knows all and puts it in the head of the government at the right moment in time and takes it away after that moment has passed.

The concept of 'What [the individual] considers true" having meaning in such matters is an example of non-objectivity at wrok. The individual in question may be incompetent by nature or at the moment. For example If I consider it true that it is OK for me to get falling-down drunk, get in my car and drive, and in the process, turn you into a squishmark on the road, does that mean that the government should not take action when they see me waving all over the road? If "considers true" is a justification, what happens to objecitivity? Plaease note Truth is "the correct identification of a fact of reality".

Reason, to operate correctly requires two things; factual premises and valid process. To speak outsie the context of those two requirement is to speak of conjecture, speculation and fantasy. While these have their place, it is not in substitution for reality in decision-making where real effects will predictably occur

Edited February 20, 2009 by Space Patroller

[Jake_Ellison]

In the first place, the claim is a fraud by being irrelevent to PETA. It's jusst a teaser. PETA is supposed to be abouut the proper treatment of animals. This is just a sensationlist non-sequitur. On a highter level. Animal Rights is a fraud so Animal Rights activists are either fraudulant or insane. Letting them do their thing in a public forum is only allowing mischief to happen to no good end and it runs the risk of granting credibility to, at best, whackjobs which suits the leftist media controllers perfectly well.

Now there is another issue. MIxed Age audiences. Many, if not most parents do not wish children below a certain age to be concerned with sex. We are a pluralistic society and this kind of thing is a middle finger stuck in the faces of a healthy and socially legitimate minority. Other parents may wish to control the time and place in which their children are introduced to sex. They have that right. Beyond that do we really need every issue to be sexualozed to the point where the Public Square is dominated by rutting animals that look vaguely humanoid, or have a sexual message attached to everything?

......

The issue of banning something is complex. having been abused by the users of cell phones,..............

Wow. All sorts of undefined words thrown around. Actually, they are defined, but you're not using them the way I know them to be defined, so I haven't a clue what you're saying.

What is fraud?

What is PETA "supposed to be", and based on what are they supposed to be anything?

What does "insane" mean?

What does the right to control your children mean, and how is that relevant to what's on TV?

How have you been abused by the users of cell-phones? More specifically, what does "to abuse" mean? ( I do have an idea of what cell phone users do: they TALK into their cellphones, in a normal voice, and then listen to the response- it can be annoying, because you don't know what they're hearing, only what they're saying. But then again, funny hats are annoying too. I'm just not sure what definition of "to abuse someone" that fits into?)

I didn't quote everything, but not because I understand the rest, rather because I think this is a good portion to start with.

Edited February 20, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[Jake_Ellison]

The governemt does have the responsibility to pass judgemetn on what is and is not true.

True, but only on issues concerning human interactions which involve either force (which is to be prevented/punished ) or trade (which is to be voluntary).

This ad's contents constitute neither (only speech, which is to be uncensored), but you're right, I should've added that. I wanted to, but the words weren't popping into my mind, and I got lazy. I left it to be assumed obvious by the reader, and I shouldn't have.

P.S. Fraud is forcing or deceiving someone into involuntary trade.

Edited February 20, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[TheEgoist]

Should we then also ban commercials that talk about God, since God doesn't exist?

There is a difference between ignorance and fraud.

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

Didn'T PETA support/protect ''animal-rights'' terrorists?

[Jake_Ellison]

Didn'T PETA support/protect ''animal-rights'' terrorists?

They sure did. That's the main reason why I said I would never air their commercial on my own TV station. However, the gov. has no right to interfere with their right to free speech.

Now if the commercial was promising cars with 10 thousand dollar donations, and instead they were delivering a picture of a car, that would not be free speech, that would be fraud.

P.S. I just realized, you're probably referring to that money, given to the terrorist guy for his legal defense I think, constitutes fraud. I agree, it does, but that was a long time ago, it would be too late to file charges. There's not enough evidence to conclude that they intend to use donations for the same purpose.(and not for what they promise in the commercial) If they do, they should be investigated then.

[Capitalism Forever]

Should we then also ban commercials that talk about God, since God doesn't exist?

May I ask which post this is in response to?

[TheEgoist]

It is in response to the general notion that you can't say anything false in an advertisement.

Of course the fact in PETA's ad isn't even comparable. I assume it was a statistical or broad medical answer? Those things are rarely precise at all.

Anyway, they weren't selling you a vegan lifestyle, where upon you find out you're eating meat or something. You weren't donating your money to what you thought protected animals, but was actually padding the pockets of some of their leaders (Which it does). Half the commercials selling something like acne cream or an exercise machine would be off the air by the standard of "You cant ever say anything false or misinformed."

[Space Patroller]

Half the commercials selling something like acne cream or an exercise machine would be off the air by the standard of "You cant ever say anything false or misinformed."

There would be nothing wrong with that: When Rand said that government is needed to "bar [the intitiation of] force or fraud", from which I presume we're working. there was no "except" clause and no "only if" and no modifiers at all.

Now some persons assert that the First Amendment protects lying (deliberate, unprovoked verbal fraud). That cannot be since the rational job of government is to specifically bar the intiation of force or fraud then such a codasyl would undermine or even negate it's primary function.

Part of the reason for the absolutism here is that if allowed a lie can spread to other things and if not made an example of, the first lie that skates encourages a second, third, ... and we find that the guard dog is toothless and the system is suborned

[Jake_Ellison]

Now some persons assert that the First Amendment protects lying (deliberate, unprovoked verbal fraud).

Lying = deliberate, unprovoked verbal fraud.

Which dictionary did that one come from?

Not to mention the fact that we still have no idea what you mean by fraud.

The first ammendment protects free speech. According to the Supreme Court's interpretation, it applies to all branches of government, not just Congress. Here's the relevant part of it:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"

A law against lying would clearly abridge freedom of speech. If the Constitution was intended to ban lying, don't you think that little detail would've been mentioned?

"some persons assert that the F.A. protects lying" is like saying that "some persons assert that this is a website". I am allowed to lie. There are no laws against lying. Check out this short deonstration:

Last night I broke the hundred meter sprint record, and later I had sex with a supermodel.

Are you saying that I don't have the right, under the First Ammendment, to write that? If you are, prove your point by calling the cops and having me arrested. I promise not to hold a grudge over it.

[TheEgoist]

Fiction should be illegal.

[Benpercent]

Fiction should be illegal.

What would our Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead be then?

[TheEgoist]

It was sarcasm.

[Space Patroller]

Lying = deliberate, unprovoked verbal fraud.

Which dictionary did that one come from?

Not to mention the fact that we still have no idea what you mean by fraud.

The first ammendment protects free speech. According to the Supreme Court's interpretation, it applies to all branches of government, not just Congress. Here's the relevant part of it:

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;"

A law against lying would clearly abridge freedom of speech. If the Constitution was intended to ban lying, don't you think that little detail would've been mentioned?

"some persons assert that the F.A. protects lying" is like saying that "some persons assert that this is a website". I am allowed to lie. There are no laws against lying. Check out this short deonstration:

Last night I broke the hundred meter sprint record, and later I had sex with a supermodel.

Are you saying that I don't have the right, under the First Ammendment, to write that? If you are, prove your point by calling the cops and having me arrested. I promise not to hold a grudge over it.

If you ask what dictionary I tgot it from I answer Life and having a brain that can figure things. Do I need a dictionary to tell me the sky is blue if know what "sky" and "blue" are or what "is" is? Would you ask Ayn RAnd what fraud is if you are older than 18? Could you run faster than whatever she would pick up and throw If we're parsing this that tightly, someone needs to get a life

If the SCOTUS said that feces was chocolate, would you... In fact the Supreme Court has often exceeded it's mission. See it's decision on the specific Constitutional command to mint only gold and silver. It has also reersed itself

Well I suppose you could write it as sci-fi. However the Constitution pertains specifically to the Federal Government.

[Jake_Ellison]

Would you ask Ayn RAnd what fraud is if you are older than 18?

I wouldn't need to. Before she decided to use it in a legal sense, she made damn sure to define it:

"A unilateral breach of contract involves an indirect use of physical force: it consists, in essence, of one man receiving the material values, goods or services of another, then refusing to pay for them and thus keeping them by force (by mere physical possession), not by right—i.e., keeping them without the consent of their owner. Fraud involves a similarly indirect use of force: it consists of obtaining material values without their owner’s consent, under false pretenses or false promises."

Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness (emphasis is mine)

Perhaps instead of incoherent rants and posts that you don't even bother to check for typos, you should read some of her relevant writings before derailing a perfectly good thread with speculation on both Objectivism and US law.

[Greebo]

It was sarcasm.

I thought it was satire.

Apt, either way.