To be fair, it wasn’t Callaway directly. It was Good Good Golf, a golf youtube channel, that aired the ad. Callaway had a partnership with them to cobrand the golf club, but dropped Good Good immediately after the ad and canceled the branded club.
Callaway still deserves the backlash from associating with them though and apparently someone giving the ok for the ad.
No, the First Amendment only protects you from the government. “Free speech” is a philosophical principle which has nothing to do with governments directly.
However, an “advertising standards board” that decides what can and cannot be posted publicly sounds pretty governmental to me.
But even when free speech wasn’t forced it wouldn’t force channels to carry your advertisement.
Of course, but that still isn’t any kind of universal standards board, that’s individual channels deciding independently.
That’s not what free speech is. Free speech doesn’t let you say whatever you want to anyone, it’s intention is to protect you while speaking out against government officials and offices. Last I checked Callaway wasn’t the 4th branch of the government, let’s not give turkey neck any ideas.
The FCC should be regulating ads like this, but this is a clown country and capitalism says domestic violence is a viable commodity to sell.
Free speech doesn’t let you say whatever you want to anyone, it’s intention is to protect you while speaking out against government officials and offices.
It sounds like you’re getting freedom of speech mixed up with the First Amendment. They aren’t the same thing. The First Amendment’s intention is to protect your freedom of speech from the government. If you want your freedom of speech protected from other things (such as your employer), the First Amendment won’t protect you.
While the topic was abhorrent and in bad taste, I don’t think there was ever a time when the FCC banned jokes about spouse/family abuse.
The Honeymooners regularly joked about the husband finally breaking and beating his wife. I Love Lucy had an episode where Lucy tried to get a sunburn so Ricky wouldn’t beat her as hard for buying an expensive dress. The Simpsons had Homer choking Bart as a running gag. All these shows were on Broadcast TV.
The FCC being useless and bought off still doesn’t mean that Callaway gets special first amendment protections. They’re a corporation, they aren’t protected from consumers and retailers dropping their products for promoting crimes, or from potential lawsuits as a result of harmful marketing.
Again, this topic has nothing to do with free speech.
I bring it up because companies which broadcast and publish material are generally given greater deference by the public for showing material they disagree with. As long as the standards are adhered to evenly, the broadcaster isn’t going to be boycotted for an ad. No one is boycotting the television stations and streamers for airing this ad; all the attention is going to Calloway.
The consequences of free speech are felt by those paying for it in public opinion, not those serving it.
The golf club company ran an ad where a woman went to touch a golf club and her man pushed her down and threatened her for her transgression.
Costco stopped carrying their clubs in response
To be fair, it wasn’t Callaway directly. It was Good Good Golf, a golf youtube channel, that aired the ad. Callaway had a partnership with them to cobrand the golf club, but dropped Good Good immediately after the ad and canceled the branded club.
Callaway still deserves the backlash from associating with them though and apparently someone giving the ok for the ad.
Thank you for the added context. It is slightly less worse, but still bad.
Kinda, callaway approved the ad, os maybe they all just suck
Does the US not have some kind of advertising standards board that you have to get adverts approved before you’re allowed to publicly post them?
We don’t have standards keeping the ass parasites out of the lettuce, take a second and ponder
Nope. Free speech.
Free speech just protect you from the government, gone out of the window anyway as of late.
But even when free speech wasn’t forced it wouldn’t force channels to carry your advertisement.
No, the First Amendment only protects you from the government. “Free speech” is a philosophical principle which has nothing to do with governments directly.
However, an “advertising standards board” that decides what can and cannot be posted publicly sounds pretty governmental to me.
Of course, but that still isn’t any kind of universal standards board, that’s individual channels deciding independently.
No one is boycotting the companies which showed the ad.
That’s not what free speech is. Free speech doesn’t let you say whatever you want to anyone, it’s intention is to protect you while speaking out against government officials and offices. Last I checked Callaway wasn’t the 4th branch of the government, let’s not give turkey neck any ideas.
The FCC should be regulating ads like this, but this is a clown country and capitalism says domestic violence is a viable commodity to sell.
It sounds like you’re getting freedom of speech mixed up with the First Amendment. They aren’t the same thing. The First Amendment’s intention is to protect your freedom of speech from the government. If you want your freedom of speech protected from other things (such as your employer), the First Amendment won’t protect you.
While the topic was abhorrent and in bad taste, I don’t think there was ever a time when the FCC banned jokes about spouse/family abuse.
The Honeymooners regularly joked about the husband finally breaking and beating his wife. I Love Lucy had an episode where Lucy tried to get a sunburn so Ricky wouldn’t beat her as hard for buying an expensive dress. The Simpsons had Homer choking Bart as a running gag. All these shows were on Broadcast TV.
The FCC being useless and bought off still doesn’t mean that Callaway gets special first amendment protections. They’re a corporation, they aren’t protected from consumers and retailers dropping their products for promoting crimes, or from potential lawsuits as a result of harmful marketing.
Again, this topic has nothing to do with free speech.
I bring it up because companies which broadcast and publish material are generally given greater deference by the public for showing material they disagree with. As long as the standards are adhered to evenly, the broadcaster isn’t going to be boycotted for an ad. No one is boycotting the television stations and streamers for airing this ad; all the attention is going to Calloway.
The consequences of free speech are felt by those paying for it in public opinion, not those serving it.
free speach is to protect your right to tell the world how politicians wronged you and how you hate all minorities
That sounds like it would go against the First Amendment.