these days, argues a well-linked Psychology Today article. It asserts that parents are so hyperprotective and managing of their children's lives that it sets them up for anxiety and depression. The kids end up spineless, showing extreme deference and obedience to people in power, and are extremely materialistic.
I'd just like to say at this point that capitalism sucks, and Rehnquist's Virginia Pharmacy dissent was essentially correct.
And I'd like to thank you, internet, for listening.
9 comments:
So in Rehnquist's dissent, there seems to be a roman numeral I, but no II. It seems as though he started out wanting to discuss the standing issue first and then move on to the merits. Why no II? Also, what does it have to do with wimpy children?
There is a roman numeral II missing from that reproduction of the opinion. The fourth para under I starts with "Thus, the issue on the merits is not..." That's the start of II.
As for what it has to do with wimpy kids...largely unrestricted business speech creates a nation of docile, politically impotent consumers.
Something like that.
But wouldn't the exposure to unrestricted business speech make us stronger? More speech equals good. Right?
No, not really. More speech is good, but only in a particular way. The good things about having more speech are having a variety of viewpoints heard and multiple differing ideas expressed. The primary value is diversity of opinion. 1am jurisprudence can only, then, really, be said to be worthwhile to the extent that it protects minority viewpoints.
And in the case of certain majority viewpoints, it can be a bad thing. Demagoguery and fascism would be the big example, but you can see it in the commercial context, too.
I mean, a significant part of people's experience is commercial speech. It programs particular ways of thinking into people. It teaches them that they are essentially flawed, but that they can find redemption through purchasing consumer goods.
And when they do they get a little rush, but then they've lost money and they don't feel any less empty in any meaningful way. So they go out and buy more, even to the extent that it hurts them badly, putting them into debt and further misery.
And so the rich get richer, companies profit, and majorities suffer as they sell themselves out to their capitalist oppressors.
"I mean, a significant part of people's experience is commercial speech."
I dare say the most significant part of people's experience is commercial speech.
How do you feel about the minority viewpoint thing in the commercial context? Like if Microsoft has a monopoly and a small startup wants to advertise but the stations refuse to air the ads. Is that even a speech issue or is it just antitrust?
If stations refuse to air the ads because MS pressures them, that would make it antitrust. But the problems are similar. I mean, in antitrust, you're keeping monopoly power in check by having competitors. Competitors keep the monopolist from charging greater than competitive prices. We work from an assumption that more commercial actors is better, which is like the idea that having more viewpoints is better than fewer.
Is such a company "minority" enough to get 1am protection? I'd say no, that commercial speech should be viewed as an aggregate. Its only content ever is the proposal of a commercial transaction, and so it's not really a minority viewpoint. "Consume!" always means "consume!", no matter who's saying it.
But maybe you could graft some politics onto commercial speech. "We use only American suppliers and labor." "We're proud supporters of Black history month." But I doubt that this would be enough.
(As an aside, I've said a couple of times now on the blogs that I don't think you can make a defensible case for 1am protection of majority viewpoints. Both times I thought the argument was kinda cheeky and had to have some quick rejoinder.)
Cheeky? You lost me. But your point is a good one. After all, if something is a majority viewpoint, it is rarely suppressed in a way that would bring about constitutional review. If a law is passed, it necessarily has majority support (if you think our republican form of democracy works). A viewpoint targeted by the law would necessarily be a minority viewpoint. Unless the citizens are masochistic.
ummmmm..... oligarchy?
anarchosyndicalism. Mostly because it's fun to say and spell.
Post a Comment