Can Bose (or others) do this in moves? (1 Viewer)

[Dennis Nicholls]

And the company's right to promote is protected by something called the First Amendment.

Sounds downright un-American! :p)

 

[Chris Lockwood]

> "It's made by Bose, it has the best sound quality in the world".

Sound quality is subjective anyway. How would you prove which brand was the best?

 

[Chris Tsutsui]

"It's made by Bose, it has the best sound quality in the world".

Whoa. On behalf of the home theater forum and bose, I'd like to thank the moderators for this. I have invited other speaker brands to be auditioned with us, and we would like to — they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious reviews that sell fictitious products. We live in a time where we have a manufacturer selling us Bose for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of jewel cubes or fictition of no posting specs, we are against you, Mr. Bose. Shame on you, Mr. Bose, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.

 

[Tom Rags]

Chris Ts, that is some good stuff!

 

[Chad Ferguson]

This kind a reminds me of Demolition Man and Taco Bell!!

 

[Peter McDonald]

Whoa. On behalf of the home theater forum and bose, I'd like to thank the moderators for this. I have invited other speaker brands to be auditioned with us, and we would like to — they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious reviews that sell fictitious products. We live in a time where we have a manufacturer selling us Bose for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of jewel cubes or fictition of no posting specs, we are against you, Mr. Bose. Shame on you, Mr. Bose, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.

LMAO

 

[Andy F]

apparently the latest Bond movie made almost $100 million in endorsements and product placement.

i'm also reminded in the clear pepsi one ad in the thomas crown affair

 

[Robert F. O'Connor]

The First Amendment does not in any way protect commercial speech and was never intended to. I believe the legal distinction between commercial and other speech predates the Bill of Rights by at least a couple of centuries.

-Robert

 

[Dave_Brown]

Well, what about Dirty Harry all those years ago:
(don't know the exact quote)

"This is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful hand gun in the world.....(sic)"

So what happens now? The statement is no longer true, if it ever really was.

There are plenty of examples of characters in movies voicing an opinion declaring it as fact. Even TV shows do it. There is no legality involved.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Robert,

My understanding was that the opposite is true. There is no distinction between commercial speech, political speech, or any other type of speech. (Of course this doesn't mean that advertisements can't be regulated.) I understand that THE FEDERALIST PAPERS by Hamilton, Madison, etc. were sold commercially; this did not exempt them from First Amendment protection.

Can anyone confirm or refute this?

 

[David Susilo]

About the Qantas blurb: it's a fact.

 

[Michael Reuben]

The First Amendment does not in any way protect commercial speech and was never intended to.

The Supreme Court disagrees. The Court's decisions for the last 30 years have recognized a degree of First Amendment protection for commercial speech, but to a lesser extent than other forms of speech. The exact extent of such protection is a continued source of debate among scholars and probably the justices themselves.

There are plenty of resources, but try here:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj..commercial.htm

M.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

I understand that THE FEDERALIST PAPERS by Hamilton, Madison, etc. were sold commercially; this did not exempt them from First Amendment protection.

At the time The Federalist first appeared between covers there was no First Ammendment. The Constitution hadn't been ratified, and there was no Bill of Rights. But this is a moot point anyway.

That something appears in a book or newspaper that is sold does not make it "commercial speech". "Commercial speech" refers specifically to advertising - that is, speech that in and of itself serves a commercial function. John Smith's new novel is not commercial speech, even though the publisher sells it and both it and Mr. Smith expect to make a profit from doing so. The full page advertisement in The New York Times Book Review encouraging readers to buy the book is commercial speech - and is subject to certain restrictions.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Allen_Appel]

Qantas has had a crash since then, 1999, Bangkok, no one hurt. This is just a new example of legal product placement sinking to new lows. It's bad enough when characters drink beer with the product label prominently displayed, but now they're commenting on the (supposedly) superior attributes of the product.

I prefer Repo Man, where they ate generic cans of "Food" and "Drink".

 

[Robert F. O'Connor]

Rob: what Joseph said.

Michael: Those cases, in fact, are the exceptions that prove the rule. They all explicitly recognize that commercial speech is excluded and extend 1st Amdmt. protections in extremely limited and narrow ways that only highlight their basic lack of protection:

The pharmacy case is just a precursor to Hudson, which basically says, "Well, you can restrict commercial speech in all the obvious ways, but try not to go beyond that without a good reason." The newsrack case really only refines what a publication is, i.e., you don't have to have any articles to be protected as a publication--just ads are fine. The contents of the enclosed ads don't receive any additional protection. Most of the rest of the cases basically deal with the right to advertise rather than the right to say whatever you want in an advertisement and I can't see the relevance of the mushroom growers case but maybe that's because I don't understand the sentence that describes it ("enough if"?).

And except for the newsrack case, I would bet that the deciding votes in these cases were all Nixon/Ford appointees (I'm talking out of my ass here, however).

-Robert

 

[Michael Reuben]

A quarter of a century ago, the Court held that commercial speech, usually defined as speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction, is protected by the First Amendment. Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 762 (1976). "The commercial marketplace, like other spheres of our social and cultural life, provides a forum where ideas and information flourish." Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U. S. 761, 767 (1993).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...0&invol=00-276

You might also want to read the full text of Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy (Blackmun, J., for a 7-justice majority), which lays out the history of the Court's "commercial speech" jurisprudence through 1975. Basically, your argument is about 30 years out of date.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...748&pageno=762

M.

 

[Robert F. O'Connor]

I am not a lawyer and I was making a broad generalization, but if a kind of speech can be regulated at will in great detail and only the occasional extreme example (e.g., no advertising of all "vice"-related products) gets slapped down the by the Supreme Court, then it is effectively not protected by the First Amendment in any meaningful way. In particular, the right to advertise does not derive from it and until the end of the 20th century no one seems to have required it to.

I will concede that Blackmun, sadly, made a dumb decision because he couldn't think of any other way to quash a law that he felt was against consumers' interests. He doesn't like that they cannot compare prices and he fabricates a specious 1st Amendment argument. Realizing the potential pandora's box he's opening, he tries to have it both ways by stating: "In concluding that commercial speech, like other varieties, is protected, we of course do not hold that it can never be regulated in any way." That is, it can be regulated in every possible way except this one that he doesn't like.

Wisely, the court has stayed away from the issue mostly since then except to address blanket bans on advertising by entire industries until the bizarro mushroom case where Kennedy picks up on Blackmun's little mistake to get rid of a commercial regulation he doesn't like (for the opposite reason) which is so far from "compelled speech" that's its laughable. If I read it correctly, he is arguing that even though an attorney can be compelled to pay fees to a bar association which may issue statements that the attorney disagrees with because those fees also pay for other things a mushroom manufacturer can't be compelled to pay for TV commercials stating something the mushroom manufacturer agrees with anyway because that money is only used to generate the commercials! Corporations have more 1st Amendment protection than individuals. It is a patently stupid argument whether it carried the court or not.

So we have about 200 years of no protection for commercial speech and 30 years of no effective protection of commercial speech in spite of a little high court lip service.

Since this is wandering in a political direction, I will shut up now and leave these arguments to stand for themselves.

-Robert

 

[Robert F. O'Connor]

Except to predict that if product placement begins to stray too close to arguable statements about specific products ("Crappywhip is a dessert topping and a cancer cure!") where money has changed hands you will see product placement begin to be regulated.

In fact, I would bet that entire roomfulls of attorneys went over that line in the script to make sure there was nothing stated that would invite the FTC's wrath.

-Robert

 

[Michael Reuben]

I am not a lawyer

Yes, that's become evident.

M.