dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
26
Bob4
Account deleted
join:2012-07-22
New Jersey

Bob4 to gatorkram

Member

to gatorkram

Re: Perfect idea for an ad.

Tobacco ads were banned long ago.

AVD
Respice, Adspice, Prospice
Premium Member
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ

AVD

Premium Member

said by Bob4:

Tobacco ads were banned long ago.

by the government.. and i wonder if that ban applies to cable.
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL

ISurfTooMuch

Member

Interesting question, and I'm not sure it's ever been answered.

My guess would be that cable could show them. After all, the government tried to apply indecency laws to cable, but the Supreme Court struck that down.

Many years ago, some states, banned radio and TV stations from airing ads for hard liquor and possibly wine, but that ban was eventually struck down. Can anyone recall if it was because of a First Amendment challenge or because it was a state van and not a federal ban, and states aren't allowed to regulate broadcasting?

Noman
@comcast.net

Noman to AVD

Anon

to AVD
Yes, the FCC banned the broadcasting of advertising for tobacco products some time ago

gatorkram
Need for Speed
Premium Member
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC

gatorkram to Bob4

Premium Member

to Bob4
said by Bob4:

Tobacco ads were banned long ago.

I didn't say the ad was for tobacco. I said the ad would be for godaddy or nascar.

Do people read before they reply?

The point of the ad, would be to put as much stuff in at, that everyone dislikes, or feels shouldn't be advertised on TV.

Sort of like all the movies that have people smoking in them. It's so important to be authentic

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru to AVD

MVM

to AVD
No cigarette or little cigar ads are to be advertised on any electronic medium under jurisdiction of the FCC:
quote:
15 USC § 1335 - Unlawful advertisements on medium of electronic communication

After January 1, 1971, it shall be unlawful to advertise cigarettes and little cigars on any medium of electronic communication subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission.

Bob4
Account deleted
join:2012-07-22
New Jersey

Bob4 to gatorkram

Member

to gatorkram
nm
Crookshanks
join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY

Crookshanks to cdru

Member

to cdru
One wonders if anybody has attempted to challenge this on 1st Amendment grounds. "Congress shall make no law...."

cdru
Go Colts
MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN

cdru

MVM

said by Crookshanks:

One wonders if anybody has attempted to challenge this on 1st Amendment grounds. "Congress shall make no law...."

OMG! That's it! I'd probably call up RJR or Phillip Morris legal council and drop them that hit. I bet they never thought of that!

Yes they've challenged the restrictions. Sometimes the challenges work. Other times they don't.

Just as yelling fire in a crowed theater isn't protected speech, courts have found that there is legitimate grounds for limiting the promotion of products that have overwhelming evidence of being harmful. And more recently, further restrictions have been upheld with the "think of the children" reasoning. The restrictions do have limits as tobacco companies have successfully challenged new regulations (so far) showing graphic anti-smoking images on products.

Also, the initial ban wasn't an outright ban on electronic advertising. It originally only required stations that showed paid tobacco ads to donate equal time of anti-smoking public service announcements. Stations didn't want to donate their time so they "voluntarily" stopped showing tobacco ads. Laws were then passed banning electronic ads but just shifted the ads to print, billboards, and other non-electronic advertising.

As part of the tobacco settlements in the 90s, among other things, in exchange for restricting further advertisements and sponsorships, they got off the hook for tort liability in civil lawsuits. Because the settlement was a civil settlement with the federal government and state attorney generals, and not a criminal lawsuit, first amendment grounds did not apply.