The law and you

Hi guys and welcome back and to 2012. I hope you all had a nice vacation because it's time we put our serious pants on for the first blog post of the new year. So to start things off, lets talk about suing!

If you're as surprised I am that the world didn't end in December of 2011 or at the stroke of midnight on January 1st, then congratulations you're most likely a decently stable individual.  Speaking of stabilization, lets get on to the subject of tonight entry; those critical court cases that affected the advertising and design world:

The most critical issue that the world of advertising runs into (in the United States) is issues with the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which, in short hand, guarantees its citizens freedom of speech (with a few limitations of course in regards to slander and 'stuff'). Anyway, the problem isn't that advertisers are looking to take away free speech, it's more often than not seeing if advertising really counts as free speech and what should be protected under the First Ammendment.


One of the most infamous scenarios is the topic of subliminal messages/ advertising. There are a ton of court cases that deal with the issue and there really isn't an official stance on the legality of the practice as a whole.  One of the more earlier and more important court cases that indirectly deals with this issue is the 1952 Public Utils. Comm'n v. Pollack, 343 US 451 case. This stated that the First Amendment protected an individuals right to hear only viewpoints they wish to hear. Going over to the subliminal side of things, a subliminal message isn't inherently heard or noticed on the conscious level and thus an individual can not make an active decision to actually listen to or view such a message.
No need to wrap yourself a tinfoil hat though, the controversial and still questionably legal technique of subliminal suggestion or advertising is way more trouble than any sane agency or business would want to deal with in this day and age. Not to mention all the bad publicity it would garnish.

Another amusing case pertaining to advertising and the First Amendment happened with the more recent Kasky v. Nike, Inc. case. The short of this case was that Nike was (and has been) under attack for mistreating and underpaying its overseas employees. They responded to these claims with press releases and ad campaigns defending the wages they paid.
However an activist pressed charges stating False Advertising for such remarks is when things got interesting. Normally this would just bee seen as slander before it even got there, but there was sufficient evidence to prove that Nike's campaign on fair wages was nothing but hogwash that they where indeed attempting to defend and promote the company an their actions under false pretenses.

Lastly, the elephant in the room: tobacco advertising. A hot button issue in America for at least 40 or so odd years as of this post.  There have been a ton of court cases on regulating and banning tobacco advertising for multiple reasons, however a 2007 court case sticks out quite a lot.  Granted it was the final result of an older case filed in 1998...
The case stated that the tobacco companies where specifically targeting areas with large 'child' demographics such as specific magazines and physical locations for their advertisements in order to capture a youth market. The case ruled that the state of California can't regulate cigarette advertisements of that nature as according to another 1998 case, that falls under federal government jurisdiction.


I doubt any of you readers will have to worry much about a subliminal cigarette advertising campaign that's focused on foreign workers 'fair' wages, but it's always a good thing to know the troubles of the past. If not to repeat them, then at least for a reminder as to how far things have come or for even a chuckle.