Government Say In Advertising; How Far Is Too Far?

Government Advertising Bans

I do not believe the government should be able to ban advertising for vice products, such as alcohol and cigarettes. This by no way means I do not think there should be regulations on advertisements for products such as these, especially for more harmful products like guns. However, the base of my reasoning is simply because these products are legal. At the end of the day all corporations want to make money and push their products, and although ethics should be a consideration in their advertisements, if the government is going to say that what they are making is legal then why should they not be allowed to advertise for it? From a business perspective it makes absolutely no sense to invest all this time, money, and other resources into a product that you then can not advertise for people to buy. That is a complete waste as there would be no way to inform potential customers about your product and mere luck if someone happens to stumble upon your store/website and purchase it. If the government truly did not want these types of products being sold, rather than trying to ban their advertising, they should work towards stricter purchase regulations or outlawing the entire products. As seen during the prohibition era that strategy is probably not a great idea and definitely comes with its consequences, but I think business-wise it makes more sense for the government to use its power to stop the sale of an entire product rather than trying to push businesses into a box with their advertisements. For example, fruit flavored juul pods can no longer be sold after the federal government sued Juul because those flavors specifically targeted teens and younger demographics, which then got them hooked on nicotine without ever having to smoke a cigarette.

Central Hudson (1980)

Even though there are some cloudy areas with the 4 part test that decides if the government can regulate advertising (Central Hudson (1980)), I think it is a pretty sound test overall. The four steps/questions include: is the speech in question eligible for First Amendment protection (aka is it false, deceptive, or illegal advertising), does the government have a compelling interest to regulate this advertising, is there a close nexus between the regulation and the goal, and is it narrowly tailored? What I think makes the test so concrete is the careful wording of each question that each step has to prove without speculation, like “compelling,” “close nexus,” and “ narrowly.” There is still room in each of these for the government and the party who wants to advertise to argue their own sides and make a case, but the diction makes sure that the government is not going overboard with their power and has real reason to regulate or ban such advertisements. If any of the answers to those four questions is no then it is unconstitutional. In addition, I also agree with the TPM restraints that put policy into place such that cigarettes can not be advertising on TV, vice products can not be advertised on Saturday morning because that is when children cartoons are on, and tobacco can not be advertised within 1,000 feet of a school. All of these are in the best interest of children, and I do not believe they are overbearing because tobacco, alcohol, and other vice product companies have so many other channels to advertise their products. I think the 4 part test keeps this balance between government and corporations in check so that we are protecting our children, yet also not allowing blatant and uncontrollable censorship.