From: daniels@ih-nxt07.cso.uiuc.edu (Daniel Ray Sawyer)
Subject: Re: the simplicities of freedom
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:15:35 GMT

In article <184296@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com  
(Paul Collacchi) writes:
> In article <1992Nov16.161052.13413@kadsma.kodak.com>,
> pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
> |> In article <37623@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James
> F. Hranicky) writes:
> |> 
> |> [stuff deleted]
> |> 
> |> >
> |> >1) You are free to accept or reject advertisements.
> |> >
> |> 
> |> No you're not. Advertising depends on this. You will be affected by
> |> advertising in ways of which you are not consciously aware.
> |> 

[stuff about billboards deleted]

> I have often wondered if television networks would be willing to "frame"
> the video signals surrounding a commercial advertisment so that viewers
> with a particular kind of device could detect incoming commercials.  Now
> suppose that we were to propose hypothetical legislation that required
> this.  Suppose also, that government agreed, for the sake of argument,
> to make all costs associated with the implementation disappear.  Do you
> suppose that networks and advertisers would be for it or against?  
> 
> In principal, the customer would be getting a service which would give
> him more control over his destiny.  On what possible grounds could
> either an advertiser or television network object?  Clearly, commercial
> advertisements are like riders on a piece of favorable legislation. 
> They are snuck into us when we are doing something unrelated but
> enjoyable.  And that is an invasion. The notion that we could always
> stop doing the enjoyable activity really misses the point.  For a real
> person, in this world, to act so as to take him or herself out of
> sensual contact with commercial advertising is, for all practical
> purposes, impossible.
> 
> The best solution, is of course, non-commerical alternatives.  These are
> becoming more viable.  In the SF area, we have four, count 'em, four
> public, non-commercial stations, and it is a blessing.
> 
> Now what to do about public eyesores such as billboards, neon signs,
> blimps, etc.  Does the right to freedom of expression guarantee that I
> am allowed to make my point and do so without punishment, or does it
> guarantee my ability to thrust it upon the unwitting?
> 
> Paul Collacchi

Although advertising can be obtrusive, it performs a few good functions.
First, it enables television stations (networks) to exist without being
subsidized/controlled by the government and/or prevents television viewers
from paying a large fee to support televisison programming.

Secondly, advertising (even commercial ads) inform the public of a good or
service that is available.  Its true that many ads are dull and appeal to
the lowest common denominator but there are other, high-quality ads which
balance this out.

Commercial advertising obviously doesn't have the same 1st amendment
rights as "regular" speech.  The Federal gvt and States regulate where
billboards can be placed, the same with neon signs etc, in cities.

Daniel at University of Illinois
daniels@sumter.cso.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory,soc.history,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty