by frog
The Heart Foundation is urging the Government to take notice of survey results that show 82% of New Zealand parents and grandparents would like to ban television advertising of unhealthy food and drink products to children. Sue Kedgley has supported the call suggesting that there should be a restriction on advertising unhealthy food on television before 8.30pm.
The logic for intervention is clear. Political parties that do not support restricting the marketing of unhealthy food to our children should just come out and admit that they have succumbed to pressure from the food industry. Where are their priorities? Do they really value commercial profits over the health of our kids?
I guess some people will be arguing that those 82% of parents and grandparents want to restrict freedom of speech. But, a bit like the Electoral Finance Act, this regulation on the fast food industry would be a restriction on advertising, not on freedom of speech. Ronald McDonald would still be able to approach as many children as he liked, on a one on one basis, to discuss the nutritional merits or otherwise of happy meals. He and his peers would just need to cut back a little on the US$10 billion he spends making sure his message gets more glamour and coverage than healthy food receives.
Published in Health & Wellbeing by frog on Tue, February 19th, 2008
Tags: advertising, children, fast food, Food, Freedom of Speech, McDonalds, Sue Kedgley
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
don’t try and tie yr poxy efb into some ‘decent’ legislation..!
are you trying to ‘curse’ it..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Child Exploitation (Happy Meals) Advertising Prohibition Act.
I love it! In fact, if a Green MP wants me to, I’ll draft it for them.
As for you, Phil U, put up some arguments, rather than use terms like ‘poxy’ and provide no substance in your post for your opposition to the EFA. The lack of intelelctual substance and the abusive and emotive language (and in some cases abusive actions such as vandalism) from opponents of the EFA derrogates from the credibility of their cause.
As frog has correctly stated, that Act is a restriction on what can be spent on advertising, not a restriction on freedom of speech. If we don’t have restrictions of that sort, we end up with US-style elections where policy is irrelevant and only $$$ count.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
gee toad..!..thanks for asking..!
why don’t you tell us why the greens wouldn’t vote for exemptions for blogs..?
thereby ensuring those exemptionsdidn’t pass..
wtf was that all about..?
shall we start there..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“..and in some cases abusive actions such as vandalism)..”
and hey..!
do try and ‘get over yourself’..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and frog..
you are confusing advertising and free speech..
they are different beasts..
and giving spruikers spiels the gravitas of ‘free speech’..
is a straw-man argument..
and the real argument is clear cut..
these people have no ‘moral’ problems with pushing their poisonous/unhealthy muck at children..
we should have no problems..and certainly not ones around ‘free speech’..
…with insisting they cease and desist..
(um..!..’obesity epidemic’..?..anyone..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil U said: why don’t you tell us why the greens wouldn’t vote for exemptions for blogs..?
Phil, you appear to have not actually read the Act, but just been sucked in by the propaganda.
Section 5(2):
The following are not election advertisements:
…
(g) the publication by an individual, on a non-commercial basis, on the Internet of his or her personal political views (being the kind of publication commonly known as a blog).
And the Greens voted FOR this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil U said: these people have no ‘moral’ problems with pushing their poisonous/unhealthy muck at children..
So you would agree with the likes of McDonalds and KFC being prohibited from child targetted advertising, Phil, but you would not support them being prohibited from spending a few million dollars supporting a political party that advocated them engaging in child targetted advertising?
I just don’t get it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
* I agree that McDonalds and similar fast foods are not good for kids (or adults for that matter) in excess, where excess is not very much at all.
* I agree that targeted advertising must work, because otherwise companies wouldn’t spend the money of the advertisements
* I agree that the increase in childhood obesity can be at least partially attributed to increase in fast food consumption (lack of exercise also plays an important role).
But don’t parents have to take responsibility for their kids? Just say no to the pestering, and don’t buy unhealthy food, or only have it for special treats (and I know that can be hard, I have kids). Personally, I only let the kids watch the ABC, because it has no ads; I realise this is not a choice in New Zealand. I once met a teacher who only let his kids watch DVDs for a similar reason, this would work in New Zealand.
Basically, my argument is that parents have to take responsibility for what their kids eat, full stop. You can’t shift the blame onto the junk food advertisers, or the responsibility onto the government.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here’s a thought, maybe parents could turn their TVs off, or not have one? I have two friends raising their small children in homes without TVs. Samiuela has the core argument, the state can’t be parent and nonsense like this just perpetuate the belief among far too many parents that they are not responsible for what their children are exposed to.
However, it is also remarkable that restricting someone telling others about something they produce is somehow not a restriction on the freedom of speech. It is, why hide from it? You support restricting freedom of speech.
Defamation laws are a restriction of freedom of speech too, so are laws against child pornography. The difference with defamation is that property rights (in this case reputation) are more valuable than the right to destroy without factual basis, child pornography is also banned because it records the commission of a crime, and one shouldn’t profit or invade the privacy of a criminal victim.
However advertising? Saying one type of food shouldn’t be advertised but others should is curious, especially given a recent UK newspaper article that demonstrated prepacked sandwiches from some shops had higher calorie content that Big Macs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/25/nsandwich125.xml
This all smacks of the Green party totalitarian instinct – you don’t like something, so you want it banned, instead of simply encouraging people to change their behaviour.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad..
have you ever thought of/considered this (believed by many) precept..?
that..”i may totally oppose what you say..
..but will defend to the death your right to say it..’…?
(it’s called ‘free speech’..toad..)
and..still laboring under the conceit/deceit that ‘money buys elections’..eh..?
if so..why hasn’t act got more than a couple of mp’s..?
and for a more recent/international example of the failures of your logic..
..is mitt romney..
and..(just in the ‘good’ example you cite..)
..why only on the ‘non-commercial basis’..?
how is that nothing but protectionism for the dead-tree media..?
and the restriction on everyone else..that you can say political stuff..
..as long as you don’t make any money from your blog/whatever..?
wtf is that all about..?
pray tell..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and as for you liberty scott..
your arguments in favour of ‘free speech’ advertising/peddling of foul/unhealthy muck to the nations’ children.
…are spurious..and facile..
do you/would you..feed your children that cr*p..?
if your answer is ‘yes’..
you are even more of a feckin’ idjit than you have displayed to date..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Great to see the split in the ludicrous, spineless , utopian green ranks.
Do you creeps have a back bone !!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ah yes, the great questions of life. Do you creeps have a back bone !! Does dad4justice have a brain?! Do you prefer New Idea or New Scientist?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn:
Ever since New Scientist published an article about a device which supposedly doesn’t conserve linear momentum (the so called relativity drive: http://technology.newscientist.com/article/mg19125681.400?DCMP=ILC-OpenHouse&nsref=mg19125681.400INT), I have had to sertiously consider the possibility that New Idea is in fact a better publication.
Cheers,
Miuela
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiuela, Isn’t the first rule of writing for No Idea “make the ads look intelligent”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yeah both Libertyscott and Samiuela hit the nail on the head. What isn’t mentioned are the survey results – 82% is an awful lot of parents who would appear to actually WANT help of this type. Do we respect those wishes? There must be some awfully weary parents out there!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How interesting, 82% (that percentage rings a bell for some reason) of parents want something banned and the Greens jump on the band wagon.
The Greens constantly remind us that banning drugs does not work yet you think it is fine to ban coke.
The Greens think that when 82% of the public want something it should be acted upon yet they steadfastly refuse to listen to the 82% of the public who do not want S59.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil U, you have again engaged in evasion and abuse, rather than respond to the facts and arguments.
Do you accept you were wrong re the EFA and blogs, now that I have quoted the section of the Act that exempts them?
And HOW do you reconcile your opposition to restricting election advertising, while supporting restricting advertising of junk food to children? To be credible on these issue, you have to be able to differetiate between them on a factual basis. You have not.
And calling libertyscott a “feckin’ idjit” is downright abuse. Attacking the person rather than the argument does not enhance your credibility either. I too disagree with libertyscott on this and many other things, but debating the issues rather than attacking the person is the way to go. Libertyscott and I, while taking opposite sides of the argument, are at least both consistent in our arguments re restrictions on advertising here – you appear to not be.
d4j said:Great to see the split in the ludicrous, spineless , utopian green ranks.
d4j, Phil U is not a Green, and has not been for several years. His abusive ad hominem tone is indicative of why – it’s not consistent with the Green non-violence principle and sits better on blogs such as yours rather than here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
You may not agree with Phil (and nor do I on 99% of things) but to say that he is “not Green” simply because he refuses to blindly support the central committee in its support of the EFB raises some worrying questions.
Phil seems (to me anyway) to be a true Green, one that is more worried about the environment and animals than “social justice”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Is “social justice” the reason why we’re third highest in the world for child abuse statistic’s?
Forget the cola for children and do something about the insidious problem for so many vulnerable children !!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
d4j
There is nothing wrong, Cindy Kiro thinks things are fine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Things are fine, yeah right , how many callous homicidal baby killers are on bail at present ? Meanwhile stupid Bradford thinks stopping parents from smacking is going to fix the problem . How dumb is this country. How twisted are the demented cronies in the corridors of power @!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Repealling Section 59 had nothing to do with ‘baby killers’ though did it. Something to do with ‘reasonable force’ I thought.
BB, they’re hardly ‘jumping on the bandwagon’ – it would seem a reasonably consistent position they’ve had on this sort of issue over the years. And NOBODY said anything about banning coke, this thread is about ADS at a certain time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BB said: …but to say that he is “not Green? simply because he refuses to blindly support the central committee..
BB, I meant Green with a capital G, meaning Green Party member. Phil certainly supports many green (small g) issues, animal welfare being one of them
There is room for diversity of opinion within the Green Party. I, for example, do not support its drugs policy as I don’t think it goes far enough re decriminalisation, but I’m still accepted a a Green. From what I recall of BJ’s posts, he doesn’t support the Green position on section 59, but is still accepted and valued as a Green.
But there is not room for personal abuse – that is very un-Green (with either big G or little one).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Here’s a thought, maybe parents could turn their TVs off, or not have one?”
And also never let your kids talk to other kids who watch TV? And don’t take them down the street where they might see a billboard? And make sure the school doesn’t have a McDonald’s sponsored reading programme?
We are not isolated individuals (or families) as some people like to pretend. We live in a society and are affected by its norms and culture, McDonald’s is fully aware of this and has a marketing strategy that aims to make eating at McDonald’s part of normal life. Having a massive budget and lots of capital it (and the other large chains) can do this much more effectively than its small competitors.
“However, it is also remarkable that restricting someone telling others about something they produce is somehow not a restriction on the freedom of speech. ”
Point is that McDonald’s ads aren’t meant to inform, if they were they’d save money by simply broadcasting a head and shoulders shot of somebody saying “we sell hamburgers, they cost such and such, the fat and sugar contents are blah blah, the buns have sesame seeds on the top… etc.” McDonald’s know damn well they can’t rely on their food to sell itself, or on informed decision making, which is why they go in for all the bright colours, clowns, toys and mindless repitition. Primarily this isn’t aimed at adults, who might sometimes make a rational decision, but at kids who aren’t so strong on cause and effect. This is why McDonald’s won the “least trusted corporation in New Zealand” title in Reader’s Digest surveys for years.
Oh, by the way, libertyscott, the Telegraph article is something the British tabloids seem to run on a regular basis, the same thing was doing the rounds when I was in London in 2002. They have a point about labelling, but it has a basic flaw of comparing apples to oranges and picking out particular indicators that the items from the sandwich shops score badly on. It also relies on the simplistic notion that “more calories are bad” rather than looking at salt and fat as a percentage of calorie intake. Obviously, if you eat less food, and hence less calories, you will eat less salt and fat.
It’s notable that in the telegraph article they criticise sandwich shop staff for not knowing what a calorie is (there’s no mention of whether McDonald’s staff knew or not), but don’t explain this in the article.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sam
There is NOTHING wrong with Kids eating McDonald’s as a treat, I do get worked up when I see the want to ban things when all that is needed is a good dose or parental responsibility.
Are you suggesting that “modern parenting techniques” are not good enough to cope with the marketing of McDonald’s and co?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Obviously im not Sam, but I suppose 82% of parents in that survey might be suggesting that…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Don’t know what you mean by ‘modern’ parenting techniques, I would just say advertising aimed at children is an additional pressure parents could well do without. And nobody is talking about banning McDonald’s or stopping parents taking their kids there for a treat, I’m talking about the pressure to normalise eating junk food as a regular event.
What does society gain from letting McDonald’s aim ads at children? Not a thing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes phil “spurious and facile” great argument, I guess you can be the food commissar who decides what is best for everyone, easy to draw the line on McDonalds, but what about their salads, etc etc. Cheers toad i try to debate on principle and argument, I’d rather not insult people unless they throw the first stone.
Sam the argument against kids watching TV is wider than advertising, it’s about teaching them to think. Children are influenced by many things and will be exposed to McDonalds. So what, they are influenced by many media, ideas, religion, what their friends say etc, it is part of parenting to inculcate values, and teach your kids to think and choose. The state shouldn’t have this role. McDonalds was once very small, and has become very successful because it sells products people want. Parents I know that allow their kids to have McDonalds do so only on an occasional basis, and resist calls for it at other times. Not that hard.
“Point is that McDonald’s ads aren’t meant to inform” well they are, and they are meant to influence behaviour. In fact so is everything published. You and I both want to influence people’s behaviour in different way by contributing to these comments! McDonalds ads, political ads, articles, blogs are all about influencing people. It’s just you approve of some forms of influencing over others or some people influencing over others.
“What does society gain from letting McDonald’s aim ads at children? Not a thing.” Who speaks for society Sam? What does society gain from letting people smoke cigars? What does society gain from letting children be taught radical Islam? What does society gain from poking fun at the Prime Minister? You’ll find plenty who will say nothing at all of these.
Freedom is about allowing people to do as they wish, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do so. It is not about having big brother decide if something should be allowed if “society gains”, given this is how China and North Korea operate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad..once again you didn’t answer the question..
and..are you saying you can’t see the differences between the freedom of speech around electioneering..
and flogging/peddling poisonous/unhealthy muck to children..?
(good grief..!..)
and as for your ‘phil is not a green..and deserves to be that way ..’
do you really want me to air the toxic/fetid behaviour of many notable greens around my blacklisting/expulsion from the greens..
i’d be happy to give you all that..excruciating detail by excruciating detail..
and hey..I was expelled/blacklisted….(kangeroo court..defendant not present/or aware of ‘trial’ and all..?..(whoar..!..eh..?..how ‘green’ is/was that..?..eh..?
you were probably one of the sc*mbags ‘involved’..eh..?
i was the only one on any moral high ground around that..
do you want me to go through all that for you/everyone..?
and hey..!..carnivorous toad..
how ‘green’ can you possibly be..?
sucking down the products made through the sufferings of sentient beings..?
you are displaying a degree of ignorance..leavened with small-minded nastiness..that is very enlightening..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“it is part of parenting to inculcate values, and teach your kids to think and choose. The state shouldn’t have this role. ”
So it’s cool with you if I go down to the local primary school and hand out cigarettes or brightly coloured anarchist leaflets telling kids its fun to smash McDonald’s windows?
“What does society gain from letting people smoke cigars? What does society gain from letting children be taught radical Islam? What does society gain from poking fun at the Prime Minister?”
Quite a lot actually, the freedom thing you keep banging on about.
“Freedom is about allowing people to do as they wish, as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to do so. ”
Agreed . McDonald’s is not a person.
There are two points here. Firstly, the issue isn’t about using rational (or irrational for that matter) arguments to persuade adults to see a point of view, but at trying to get children to actively advocate for being taken to McDonalds.
Secondly, if you have a system that allows particular people or corporates to wield large amounts of power (which in this case means having a huge advertising budget) it’s reasonable for society to place limits on that power.
Personally, I don’t see that freedom is served by certain people being able to amass significantly more power or wealth than others in the first place.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No answers yet Phil?
You don’t impress anyone by calling people “sc*mbags”, “fetid” and “toxic”. You just demean yourself.
And how the hell do you know what I eat?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Having established the principle that political dissent can be suppressed by the state I find it hard to believe that the Greens and other authoritarians genuinely feel the slightest twinge about extending it and imposing what amounts to general censorship of what we are allowed to see on our televisions.
- “Point is that McDonald’s ads aren’t meant to inform”
Apparently the cherished right of free speech only extends to stuff that, in Sam’s opinion, is meant to “inform.” Who knew? So all movies and virtually all broadcasts outside the news can be censored by the state on that basis. Newspaper editorials and opinion pieces can likewise be banned. And as for pornography, well, let’s not waste our time discussing its obvious lack of factual content and peer-reviewed science.
You see, when we start inventing reasons why it’s okay to limit other people’s rights (and always for the good of “society”), well, there’s no logical end to it, is there?
Do I not have a right to see and read what I want, without you banning it in this way? Whether I want to see a McDonald’s advert or read a political tract, it’s entirely up to me. You are so busy striking down the rights of the evil McDonald’s owners and shareholders that you fail to see that it is also *our* rights you are oppressing. When Labour and the Greens limit political speech, it is *our* right to see and hear such speech that they are stifling, not just the rights of those who would publish.
- “Personally, I don’t see that freedom is served by certain people being able to amass significantly more power or wealth than others in the first place.”
You have it precisely backwards. This is Hayek’s point, that you must choose between equality before the law for everyone, or material equality for everyone. You can’t have both. Inequality is the inevitable result of freedom, it doesn’t “serve” it – “Equality of the general rules of law and conduct, however, is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty and the only equality which we can secure without destroying liberty. Not only has liberty nothing to do with any other sort of equality, but it is even bound to produce inequality in many respects”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I find the arguments here somewhat funny.
Yes, the Greens do argue that banning a product itself in attempt to stop it from being circulated just drives that product onto a black market and generates crime.
However, they do not argue that banning or restricting advertising for a product does anything similar. We already restrict advertisement of cigarettes, for instance, yet none of you seem willing to stand up for freedom to advertise cigarettes. (freedom to smoke them? Sure. But why let them encourage people? The only large-scale point of smoking is to put money in the pockets of big corporations…)
Let’s be clear here again: I don’t think advertising is not necessarily “speech”, in the sense of freedom of speech. Advertising is often an attempt to bully an idea into our minds through repetition, or create a positive assocation with a product. Just like electioneering. There is usually no concept being expressed. There is just a reference to a product. Children are particularly vulnerable to this type of advertising. And regardless of McDonalds advertising their salads, do you really think that’s what they sell because of people seeing their ads?
There’s a big difference between presenting concepts and facts, and presenting reference to an action you want someone to take. (buy our product, elect this person, don’t consider these ideas, use our service, etc…) Speech that clearly seeks to impell an action rather than inform thought seems to me to be less about freedom and more about control.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ari – do you drink Coke? Drive a BMW? Vote ACT? Holiday in Fiji? Fly Singapore Airlines? Eat TipTop? Order Pizza Hut?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
so..you don’t deny you were one of those involved in railroading me..?…eh..?
and..if you are a vegan..i’ll withdraw and apologise..
but somehow..i don’t think i’ll have to..eh..?
and you still haven’t answered the ‘not for profit only’ repressive/anti-democratic law you helped pass..
and i repeat..would you like me to detail why i used words such as fetid/toxic/scumb*g..?
i just ‘demean’ myself..?
yeah..right..!
how about you/the greens demeaning the whole environmental movement..?
with your support of that repressive legislation..?
and your selling/giving of our mandate to labour..?
for peanuts..?
(now..that’s ‘demeaning’..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ari,
- “yet none of you seem willing to stand up for freedom to advertise cigarettes”
FWIW, tobacco companies should indeed be able to advertise freely.
Who’s that Australian euthanasia guy that’s in the news? He also has a perfect right to speak his mind and publish his book here. It’s a disgrace that the state should oppress his right to publish, and my right to read. Anyone who accepts a job titled “Chief Censor” deserves everything bad that happens to him.
I hope everyone would agree that I do indeed have a right to read his book about suicide. That being so, how can I not also be permitted to see an advert for a McDonald’s sandwich?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Obivously not one of those moral-conservatives…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“So it’s cool with you if I go down to the local primary school and hand out cigarettes or brightly coloured anarchist leaflets telling kids its fun to smash McDonald’s windows? ”
Well the school should be able to assert its property rights to stop you trespassing, otherwise I wouldn’t send my kids there. If you do it outside the school then handing out cigarettes is illegal supply to minors, and handing out leaflets is incitement to violence. However leaflets that don’t incite violence would be fine, although if you do it I along with some friends might confront you and tell you to leave our kids alone. Don’t need the state to do that, unless you engage in harassment then it is a Police matter.
“McDonalds is not a person”, no it is a collective of people, it has legal personality.
Your assertion that “if you have a system that allows particular people or corporates to wield large amounts of power (which in this case means having a huge advertising budget) it’s reasonable for society to place limits on that power”.
This power is not the use of force, the limits you talk about are the use of force. McDonalds forces nobody to do anything, nobody forces people to be its customers and the idea that children “force” their parents to go to McDonalds reflects on the parents not McDonalds.
What’s wrong with changing the world by convincing people to act differently? If you don’t like McDonalds then don’t go there, encourage others not to, don’t use violence whether direct or via the state.
You say “I don’t see that freedom is served by certain people being able to amass significantly more power or wealth than others in the first place.”
Well nobody should have power to initiate force, at all. Wealth is a function of the application of the mind to investment, productivity and the like, it is a reward for that (except when it is from the initiation of force or fraud). Freedom is NOT served by denying people the right to own the fruits of their own success, risk taking or innovation, indeed it is served by not initiating force against others.
Ari: I AM willing to stand up for the freedom to advertise cigarettes, of course advertising shouldn’t be fraudulent, and advertising a product without also disclaiming that it is harmful is a significant issue. You don’t get the point. McDonalds sells legal products, it doesn’t bully or force anyone to do anything or not do anything. You also don’t have a right to bully or force it to not do anything.
Your artificial distinction between “Speech that clearly seeks to impell an action rather than inform thought seems to me to be less about freedom and more about control” doesn’t stack up. “Support the Green Party” encourages action. You have no idea what information encourages people to act one way or another. A news report on a traffic accident probably impels people to travel a different time or route. A news report on the opening of a big new hotel probably impels people to try it. You’re drawing a conceptual line that doesn’t stack up.
Free speech is free speech. You have the right to protest against McDonalds, encourage a boycott, and raise money to pay for more advertising. If you can’t convince people to do this as much as McDonalds convinces then that is your problem. Lots of people would rather buy a hamburger than pay to convince others not to. Why? Because most people tend to believe they make their own choices and don’t really want to tell others what to do. I’m intrigued by those who do.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil U said: with your support of that repressive legislation..? and your selling/giving of our mandate to labour..?
What absolute rubbish. The general principles that the Greens supported in the Electoral Finance Act were endorsed by Green Party members through a democratic consultation and feedback process within the Party long before Labour had even introduced the Bill. Restrictions on third-party election advertising spending was one of those principles.
On that basis, the Green MPs were bound to support it, because it was endorsed by the Green Party membership through democratic policy-making process, not because of any deal with Labour.
Sure, the Greens didn’t get eveything they wanted from the EFA – Green policy supports a much lower cap on anonymous donations and public funding of political parties and Labour wouldn’t wear either of those. But as the Bill moved in the direction of Green policy, it warranted support.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
libertyscott said: Free speech is free speech. You have the right to protest against McDonalds, encourage a boycott, and raise money to pay for more advertising.
Funny how McDonalds didn’t see it that way though, libertyscott, and sued people for libel who did precisely that!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad said..
“..The general principles that the Greens supported in the Electoral Finance Act were endorsed by Green Party members through a democratic consultation and feedback process within the Party long before Labour had even introduced the Bill.
Restrictions on third-party election advertising spending was one of those principles..”
interesting..!..and what you say just confirms something i noted before..
that the first draft of the bill was virtually/word-for-word russel normans (published) wish-list for such legislation..
when noting this..i purported it clearly demonstrated how the greens have to take a major responsibility for this (repressive) legislation..
(at the time you were all being very ‘coy’..about your degree of involvement/responsibility..
(nice to be proved..in hindsight/by your words..that i was correct..in my assumption/claim..eh..?
so..thanks for that..!
(and don’t give me that ‘bullsh*t about ‘democratic processes within the green party..?
eh..?
now..both you and i know that is patently false..
and that everything is engineered/controlled..
(with the ‘results’ always known..eh..?..
do you forget how many years i was there..?..darling..?..)
now..back to the two questions i’ve asked..and you’ve ‘swerved’ around..?
(i’ll make it easy..!..)
question number one:..why did you vote to entrench/protect the dead-tree media
..by dictating that blogs making political comment have to be not-for-profit..?
question number two..
if we accept your ‘fears’ about the ‘buying of elections’..as a ‘given’..
why does act only have two mp’s..?
and why is mitt romney not still running for the presidency..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and..i repeat..
the actions of the exclusive brethren could have been ‘dealt with’..under existing legislation..
and more and more..
it is looking like this whole electoral finance bill is a case of tandem-utu..
clark getting utu against national..
and norman getting utu against the exclusive brethren..
‘cos they are the reason he just missed out on getting into parliament..
(and that ‘spoutings’ about ‘democracy’..
are really a case of ‘trying it on’..eh..?..)
and what is really disturbing about this..
is normans use/manipulations of the ‘democratic-system’..
..to achieve those (personal) utu-ends..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
toad said..
“..On that basis, the Green MPs were bound to support it, because it was endorsed by the Green Party membership through democratic policy-making process, not because of any deal with Labour..”
you really are ‘slinging it ‘ there..eh..?
the policy-making process in the green party has been controlled by sue bradfords’ p.a. for ..how long now..?
how many years..?
he–and a rolling-cast of (dragooned/short-lasting) ‘volunteers’ have dictated (under direction) green part policy..
so..y’know..!
don’t try and give me/us that ‘democratic’ bullsh*t..!..eh..?..)
the truth couldn’t be further from what you purport..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
and that the poicy main-man is a carnivore who prefers the ‘delights’ of tobacco/alcohol..over more ‘herbal’ pasttimes/hobbies..
perhaps goes some way towards explaining the dearth of cannabis law-reform/animal welfare/’rights’ policies/priorities from the greens..eh..?
and don’t forget..!
that when nandor goes..the number of vegetarian green mp’s will be zip/zero/nada..
and the (female) party leaders’ ‘favourite-meal’..
..is eating the flesh from a calf she has hand-reared on her coromandal property..
(kinda ‘sad’/despair-inducing really..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hmmm… lots of people seem to want to argue this as a free speech debate and seem reluctant to address the issue that this isn’t about banning McDonald’s ads, but about limiting their access to children. I presume most people would agree that kids have limited critical faculties compared with adults and are hence a special case?
““So it’s cool with you if I go down to the local primary school and hand out cigarettes or brightly coloured anarchist leaflets telling kids its fun to smash McDonald’s windows? ?
…If you do it outside the school then handing out cigarettes is illegal supply to minors, and handing out leaflets is incitement to violence. However leaflets that don’t incite violence would be fine, although if you do it I along with some friends might confront you and tell you to leave our kids alone. Don’t need the state to do that, unless you engage in harassment then it is a Police matter.”
Hang on, why are you arguing that handing out cigarettes isn’t on? I’m not forcing anybody to smoke them, it’s their decision. Are you saying its wrong because the state has decided its illegal? In which case why can’t the state decide it’s illegal for McDonald’s to aim ads at children?
Secondly, I presume you are suggesting intimidating me to stop me handing stuff to kids (if you are suggesting a reasonable discussion you wouldn’t be bringing your mates along, and I could simply ignore your attemot to interfere with my freedom) is it therefore OK for me to go round up a few friends and stand over a McDonald’s manager and tell him to leave our kids alone?
By the way, I wasn’t suggesting leaflets inciting violence, just property damage. McDonald’s ads advocate behaviour which is damaging to the body and the environment and causes the death of animals. Why is one OK and not the other? Are you once again looking to the state for decisions about what is moral and what isn’t?
“Apparently the cherished right of free speech only extends to stuff that, in Sam’s opinion, is meant to “inform.?”
Didn’t say that at all, Mouldy old fruit, I was refuting the suggestion that McDonald’s ads are informative, not suggesting that everything uninformative should be banned as a consequence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This comes down to a simple view of how much the government (any government) should be allowed to interfere with “stuff” in the goal of doing what governments are supposed to do, which is to look out for the interests of the people.
I’m a big supporter of McD, and make use of their facilities often, so I’m in no way anti-McD, I’m pro McD; I like the food and the company. However, it does seem that if obesity is a problem, then our government should look into it. I would think enforcing me (and anyone else overweight who has a perchant for non-healthy food) to go to a gym would be excessive intervention, but trying to stop kids getting on the fattist bandwagon early by doing to McD ads what happened to ciggy ads (for similar reasons) is not so unreasonable…?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Ari – do you drink Coke? Drive a BMW? Vote ACT? Holiday in Fiji? Fly Singapore Airlines? Eat TipTop? Order Pizza Hut?”
I view very few ads, but I do find it disturbing how often I think “I’m hungry” and a fast-food ad will pop up into my head, especially given how little advertising I am subjected to. I’m reasonably disciplined in what I buy, but yes, I have a problem with the amount of influence clearly unhealthy products are allowed to have on consumers. I want to be clear that I don’t think we should be considering banning advertising on just anything that’s harmful- rather, that we should specifically target those things that are not only uncontroversially bad for you, but feel good at the time despite it. This doesn’t mean they don’t get to promote themselves- you’ve seen the line-ups of cigarettes behind dairy counters, and there’s plenty of smoking in hollywood, etc… it just bans direct advertising on tv, radio, and in magazines/newspapers and billboards.
As I’ve said before, I’m certainly not claiming that advertising forces someone to act. Just that it’s not ineffective, and I don’t think we should offer that kind of commercial support to enterprises that essentially prey on consumers with unhealthy products.
Mouldwarp & L.S.: Okay, apparently some of you DO want to stand up for smokes being advertised. Fair enough. I had obviously assumed too much when I saw a debate devoid of that easy comparison.
Mouldwarp: Even excluding the fact that said campaigner is talking about a political issue and not promoting a product or candidate, I’d still view talking about euthanasia as more socially beneficial than talking about cigarettes. Euthanasia can actually have positive effects. (ie. cessation of pain) As for the rest of your point… might want to see below.
L.S.: I’m not trying to make an artificial distinction between whether people who hear advertising are impelled to (re)act. I’m trying to make a meaningful distinction between whether the nature of the advertising itself is simply referential to a “product” or “action” you’re trying to “sell” to someone to benefit themselves, or trying to associate a product or person with something positive that’s clearly unrelated, (hey, let’s have preschoolers using mobile phones! Or sell cars with sexy models!) and advertising that actually offers information or tries to perform a public service. I don’t think, for example, buying lots and lots of advertising to try and associate BMWs with models is freedom of speech. I would certainly, however, support a public awareness campaign by a cigarette company for any positive benefits they had rigorously proven to be associated with smoking cigarettes. Or McDonalds talking about how “healthy” they are at a food industry seminar, for instance.
While I’m certainly very pro-freedom of speech, I draw the line at things that uncontroversially predate on people that don’t know better. I think allowing McDonalds to advertise to people who don’t know about food nutrition is kind of like allowing pedophiles on teen dating sites
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I suspect that fast-food pops into your head for a variety of reasons, including convenience, availability and affordability.
Associating BMW with models may be many things – crass, inspired, offensive, salacious – but so what? If the message isn’t convincing, it will be short-lived. As a BMW owner myself – models draped over a BMW would put me off. Low rent. Not a serious car. BMW advertising tends to be about performance and elitism.
I digress…
>>predate on people that don’t know better.
Isn’t this at the heart of the left debate on free speech, the EFA, etc. i.e People are mindless?
I take your point about children. I don’t think people are mindless robots. I think people make rational decisions in response to incentives.
There are enough people that would ban McDonalds advertising. I like McDonalds. Why should those people be able to prevent McDonalds speaking to me? Is that really freedom of speech? Who decides? Where does it end?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bluepeter: Nope, it has done so at many times where it is neither convenient or available, and the fact of the matter is that long-run, it’s less affordable if you value your health and work efficiency.
The problem is that the messages don’t need to be convincing. They just need to build a positive association that tips us over the edge from “Wow, I really like that BMW, but god… it costs too much and it’d be silly.” to “Oh man, the chicks will totally dig my new BMW!”
“Isn’t this at the heart of the left debate on free speech, the EFA, etc. i.e People are mindless?”
No, it’s not, you’re missing the point. The point is that there is a tipping point where advertising becomes effective, and that this tipping point is much, much lower in people who are not well-informed on a subject, and there is a significant social cost to allowing anyone to advertise as much as they can afford without restriction.
That social cost could be that it undermines democracy and freedom of speech, or that it creates a culture of debt and unhealthiness where we have some families buy plasma TVs they can’t afford and eat KFC three nights a week.
And no, people don’t always make rational decisions- sometimes it really is a matter of some subconscious irrational belief tipping the scales on rationality. Haven’t you ever had an initial reaction that was wrong and stuck with it for no good reason without realising it until you look back later? I once criticised a friend really badly because I thought they were being overprotective only to find out I was most definitely wrong later. I didn’t even think rationally about that decision at all, it was entirely intuition. I don’t doubt that some of us in this country will apply the same reasoning to what they buy.
“Who decides? Where does it end?”
Voters decide, if indirectly. Where does it end? I don’t think we should single out any type of speech this way without a consistent set of principles- hence why I laid out that we’re talking about advertising of deceptively predatory products like gambling, unhealthy fast food, cigarettes, alcohol, etc… That way we know where it will end, and we will only add to the list if we want to.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>The point is that there is a tipping point where advertising becomes effective, and that this tipping point is much, much lower in people who are not well-informed on a subject
It isn’t that simple. Advertising works on smart, educated people, too. For advertising to work, the consumer, educated or not, must perceive benefit.
Those who eat KFC three times a week are most likely lazy. On one level, KFC is providing a service to lazy people. We may wish these people weren’t lazy and cared more about their diet, but these people exist, and they’ve got to eat. Advertising didn’t create laziness and stupidity – advertising responds to the fact such people exist.
>>deceptively predatory….unhealthy fast food
But it isn’t unhealthy. It’s probably safer than food man has eaten for thousands of years. Like anything, it is only unhealthy in high doses.
But then so is water…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I have to say that I agree that advertising such things to children should be banned. Trying to get kids “hooked” on your food or drink is just shameless.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)