• Tippy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    27 days ago

    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.

    • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      27 days ago

      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.

    • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      27 days ago

      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.

      • Tippy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        27 days ago

        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.

        • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          27 days ago

          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.