Advertisements, Good? Bad? or Ugly?

Thinking about advertisements and how they resonate with people in society I do think they have an intrinsic value in certain aspects. They are an asset of worth and they give some sort of feeling when people view them. Whether it is good or bad, people respond on some level to an advertisement. If they do or do not like the ad, the means of objective are rewarding and deliver a message of value.

With that being said, I do not think the government should be allowed to ban advertisements for certain products.This is because as we have discussed in class there are different areas that certain advertisements have to pass. It's not fair to restrict their free speech but they are allowed to manipulate their avenues. This inturn allows them to advertise products that are not healthy or safe to the public. An example of this would be tobacco advertising, they are not allowed to promote cigarettes within 1000 feet or so from a school. They can still market their product just not everywhere. I agree with this tactic because clearly this isn't a good product due to health concerns but they aren't “technically “ taking away speech in its entirety. It is not fair to take away a company's right to promote / advertise a product, they can put restrictions on it that may feel is right, and make it hard but altogether banning it, is not fair. It's not a fair claim these are companies should be ban because their are people who need money and promoting a product as bad as it may seem still needs to generate money.

Certain companies like tobacco have a right to the first amendment as I have stated previously and the government has to agree with their means to promote. But, as we discussed in class they make it narrow. By doing so, they may not promote on certain media channels. It's an interesting thought because I understand why the government should ban products because i believe the examples that wre given certainly can mislead audiences but, from advertising stand point such as tobacco, companies have a right to their consumers and reach out to potential new clients. It won't go away anyways so banning a company's advertising rights won't make it fully go away.

If a company decides to promote a product that can cause harm to a public or to the individual they should be held responsible. They owe them compensation depending on the severity of the situation and allow them to publicly apologize to the public or individual.They are responsible for the outcome of a product no matter how cautious they may be. Companies should be telling the public or individual much potential cause can come from said product / service.

Now the question of who should set the rules comes into play when we thing about banning/ regulating advertisements. To me, I would assume the federal government would have this job or maybe even congress. This is because they are made up of different political parties that can potentially bring balance to the regulations.

The companies themselves should have a say in this decision but it is a bias opinion and like we have said in class, many government officials have certain companies in their pockets. Its a challenging topic to discuss because we have talked about this before in class and decided their really cant be a one size fits all to specific ads. Their are cases that have set standards but to completely whip out a whole marketing for advertising doesnt seem ethical, does it?