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

[Capitalism Forever]

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

I see. Would you approve of where I drew the line in my previous post, namely that you cannot misrepresent concrete facts of reality, but other than that, you can say anything you please, be it true, false, or arbitrary?

For example:

• "I saw John Doe kill his wife" -- this is a claim about a concrete event, so if you did not actually see John Doe kill his wife, you cannot say it
  
• "All evidence suggests John Doe killed his wife" -- this is a conclusion drawn from concretes, so it's OK legally; it is up to the listener to decide whether the reasoning is correct
  
• "John Doe is a lousy husband" -- this is an opinion, so it's OK legally, regardless of how great a husband John Doe really is; it is up to the listener to make his own judgment
  
• "I saw God talking to John Doe" -- this is arbitrary, which means it's neither true nor false, therefore OK legally; it is up to the listener to recognize it as nonsense
  
• "I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you" -- this is a joke, which all reasonable men should be able to recognize as such, therefore legally OK
  
• "Howard Roark laughed" -- this is fiction, and all reasonable men should be able to recognize it as such, therefore fine
  

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.

Oh, if the ad simply said, "Vegetarians have better sex," then it would be pure opinion, so it would never fall under the scope of the law. But what it says is: "Studies show vegetarians have better sex." Now, if there indeed exist at least two (because of the plural) studies that have somehow managed to correlate vegetarianism with sexual pleasure, then they're in the clear. But if there aren't, then a legal case could be made against them (although, as I noted, it would be up to the plaintiff to prove that PETA was not aware of such studies when they made the ad, which--qua proving a negative--is pretty much impossible unless they can get an admission out of PETA).

[Capitalism Forever]

studies that have somehow managed to correlate vegetarianism with sexual pleasure

Correlate positvely, that is. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that vegetarians had worse sex.

BTW, since the objection was to the ad beeing too sexy: While I wouldn't want my children to see it, somehow I don't find it sexy at all. "Racy," yes, but not sexy in a positive way. It is quite possible for a professional clown to be sexy, and to be so during her performance as a clown--but if a woman makes a clown out of herself while trying to be sexy, that is not sexy, just funny !

[Jake_Ellison]

Good. We're back on track.

I see. Would you approve of where I drew the line in my previous post, namely that you cannot misrepresent concrete facts of reality, but other than that, you can say anything you please, be it true, false, or arbitrary?

Hope you don't mind if I answer the question too.

I don't approve of where you drew the line. I think the line should be drawn like this: if an action is a direct or indirect use of force (indirect meaning breach of contract-self explanatory-, or fraud - material value being taken from someone under false pretenses), then that's illegal. Everything else is legal.

Even "I saw John Doe kill his wife" is legal, as long as you're not causing John Doe some kind of harm- for instance if you're lying to the cops, then he'll be arrested, and that's harm. However, if it's some conspiracy nut taking out an advertisement on how Bush is responsible for 9/11, that's fine. He's not using force against anyone.

[dadmonson]

So the truth is that the Peta ad shouldn't of been banned?

[dadmonson]

So the truth is that the Peta ad shouldn't of been banned?

Someone just emailed me something...

I'd like to add that I said the quoted section to provoke discussion, not because I'm so naive that I can't come up with my own conclusions. My concern isn't about being right all the time it is about finding the truth.

Edited February 23, 2009 by dadmonson

[Jake_Ellison]

Someone just emailed me something...

I'd like to add that I said the quoted section to provoke discussion, not because I'm so naive that I can't come up with my own conclusions. My concern isn't about being right all the time it is about finding the truth.

Aren't you automatically right when you find the truth? And when you're right, haven't you automatically found the truth?

[Greebo]

So the truth is that the Peta ad shouldn't of been banned?

That depends on who does the banning.

If the broadcaster bans the ad, no problem, it's their channel.

[Capitalism Forever]

Hope you don't mind if I answer the question too.

Not at all, but since you did, you'll now have to answer some follow-up questions:

Even "I saw John Doe kill his wife" is legal, as long as you're not causing John Doe some kind of harm

How would you define harm? What are the criteria for judging whether a plaintiff has really been harmed? Given that he is filing a suit, he obviously has some grudge; the defendant did something he didn't like. There are obviously some cases of this where there is no force involved; for example, if I spend $10 on gas to go to a job interview but they hire someone else, I may not like that, but I don't get to sue them for the $10. And there are some cases where there obviously is force involved, like the example you mentioned about getting arrested because someone lied to the cops. But in between, there can be some cases that are not so obvious to me: If, say, someone falsely tells my prospective employer that he saw me kill my wife, and I don't get hired because of that--have I been legally harmed?

However, if it's some conspiracy nut taking out an advertisement on how Bush is responsible for 9/11, that's fine. He's not using force against anyone.

Conspiracy theories usually fall under the heading of the arbitrary or the non-sequitur (and in any case, to the extent that they are theories, they are not claims about concrete facts)--so they would be legal under my system. Your delineation, just like above, leads to the question of what is "harm." Bush could say the ad had a harmful effect on his approval rating; how would you respond to that?

[Jake_Ellison]

How would you define harm?

....

If, say, someone falsely tells my prospective employer that he saw me kill my wife, and I don't get hired because of that--have I been legally harmed?

By a lie causes harn to someone I meant to say that the lie knowingly (this knowingly is a bit tricky-it means it can be reasonably expected to, just like in felony murder cases) causes force to be initiated against someone, or is meant to defraud someone.

In your example, it depends on who that person is. If it is someone who is payed to decide these things, and consult your prospective employer on potential hires, then he is commiting fraud by intentionally derailing a business transaction with a fraudulent claim.

If it's just some guy lying about you, and the prospective employer happens to overhear him, that's not fraud on the liar's part.

But I don't think it is this straight forward to determine the liar's intent, motives etc. in more complex cases. If I knew anything about law, I'd mention more specific guidelines to when criminal charges can be filed, to when a civil suit should be in order etc. Unfortunately I don't have such knowledge, I just have the principle upon which the laws should be based.

[dadmonson]

EDIT:I had to take my essay that I wrote down.

Edited March 30, 2009 by dadmonson