TheAgitator.com
Compelled Speech
Tuesday, December 9th, 2003The merry band of libertarian litigators at the Institute for Justice have latched onto yet another righteous cause.
This time, it’s the government-mandated requirement that all producers of certain agricultural products be required pay up for generic ad campaigns designed to boost demand for their product — be it beek, pork, honey, or in this case, milk. (Imagine you’re a pork or beef farmer, and you’re required to pay for Cool 2B Real, or Pork 4 Kids?)
So all of those “Got Milk?” ads you’ve seen aren’t the result of milk producers getting together voluntarily to launch an ad campaign, they’re the result of a federal mandate requiring every dairy producer to pay up, whether they want to or not.
IJ is representing a small dairy farm that wishes not to associate itself with its Big Dairy competitors.
I think there’s another interesting angle to this story, too. The federal government is simultaneously requiring diary producers fund ad campaigns for milk, while cozying up to nanny-state organizations that criticize Big Dairy for promoting an unhealthy product in those very campaigns.
When the day comes that John Banzhaf finally launches his class action suit against Big Dairy or Big Pork, then, will he be able to name as co-defendant every dairy producer who was compelled by law to support the ad campaigns?
Didn’t the milk producers agree to pay for these ad campaigns by not moving to Somalia? (I gather that’s how social contracts work.)
How is this in principle different from billing me for any other damn thing the government wants to say or do?
Okay, JTK, you’ve made your point. Dozens of times. On a dozen posts. We get it.
Step out of the house a bit. Get some air. Have a beer.
“We get it.”
Would it were so. I see little evidence that you do.
“Step out of the house a bit. Get some air. Have a beer.”
You mean lay off your comments section a bit?
No problem.
Something I Did Not Know
Radley over at TheAgitator.com has a blog entry on compelled speech by the government. I always thought those “Got Milk” ads were the product of milk producers and a hiring agency, like the Florida Orange Co-Op. Apparently, it is actually compelled gov…
JTK, you’ve given a good reason to tolerate these requirements and not tar and feather the collectors and those who pass such laws. That doesn’t mean these laws are right or even a good idea. It’s funny how a little criticism gets taken so far nowadays.
“I don’t like abortion.” “So you think abortion should be illegal?” “What? I didn’t say that.”
“Company X puts out a bad product.” “So you think there should be regulations stopping them from selling it or anything like it?” “Where’d you get that idea from?”
It happens across political lines, and it gets very tiresome.
JTK rocks my socks, and I hope he doesn’t stop commenting here.
He is right that this is really no different than anything else we are all compelled to fund.
Fortunetely (?) this is force funded by a specific group and implicates speech–and so is more easily challenged in court (we can save the tar and feathering for those collections that we cannot legally challenge).
However, it is getting harder to raise 1st Amendment objections to these compelled funding schemes. I am writing my law journal comment (inspired by IJ’s case, which I worked on this past summer) on the extension of the “government speech” defense to these advertisements, which has been raised in many and successful in a few of the challenges to such compelled advertising campaigns. Basically, the more heavily the government regulates these industries and runs the advertising program, the less the 1st A protections–it is pretty perverse.
John Kennedy: You mean lay off your comments section a bit?
I certainly hope you donâ??t. You are without a doubt the most interesting posters on this site.
Radley Balko: Okay, JTK, you’ve made your point. Dozens of times. On a dozen posts. We get it.
Iâ??m not so sure that Mr. Kennedy has made his point. And if he has, I certainly havenâ??t â??gotten itâ? just yet. Anarchy (if it is indeed a viable option) would have broad ramifications, and as it seems to be a cornerstone of the philosophy for many libertarians. I donâ??t think your site suffers from having a strong advocate for the position posting here.
I think the “point” that JTK is getting at is that we as bloggers are half-assing it by complaining about some egregious misuses of power but not others. Our efforts are useless in the face of our massive and tyrannical government.
“How is this misuse different?” he asks.
“Aren’t these legislators playing by the rules they have adopted?” he asks. “Why bother pointing this shit out?”
“Why is this coercion any worse than me, John T Kennedy, paying my taxes.”
Well it’s not. But bloggers pick the ones that are of interest to us and that we personally find to be particularly ridiculous.
We’re all aware, JTK, that most government action sucks. And those people who aren’t aware aren’t going to be convinced by Radley writing “It all sucks” over and over again. And obviously there simply isn’t enough time to document every single abuse of power, every instance in which the government sucks. So we introduce anecdotal evidence of the suckage, examples that make the suckage more real.
I don’t think that just because this blog contains criticism of un-liberal actions, it is in some way responsible for pointing out and criticising all egregious actions of the government. It’s one thing for JTK to say, “Well, I feel that this case is particualry unimportant.” But that’s not what he’s doing. He’s saying, “Well, it’s all unimportant in the face of me having to pay taxes.” While it may be a valid argument, it certainly would get old fast if every post ended with “…but this misuse of power is of course expected. After all, John T Kennedy is still paying his taxes.”
Sorry for the rant.
Thanks, brooke, for supplying a new signature line for all of my posts…
“…but this misuse of power is of course expected. After all, John T Kennedy is still paying his taxes.”
Absolutely brilliant.
wow. what a tangled web we have here. first, we have subsidies to the farming industry by the gov’t. then, the government requires the same industry to give that money to another industry.
a few questions here. one, does the milk industry have a legitimate complaint? two, should we really be surprised that the government is requiring one special interest(farming industry) to battle another special interest(nanny-staters)? finally, why doesn’t the government just reduce the original farming subsidies and give it straight to the advertising industry?
is there anything the government doesn’t have its filthy hand in?
JTK: I’m Batman.
No use crying over spilled milk.
This is interesting, but it’s hardly “Government” that made the decision to compel the ad campaign. Dig a little deeper, and you’ll find that this was the pet project of a person or a small group of persons. And that they either directly or indirectly benefit personally from the mandate.
My bet was that this was the favor a large advertising firm or TV station got in return for their campaign contribution(s).
You want to fix this? figure out a way to take most of the money out of campaigns. Like, for instance, giving free air time to candidates.
Who will the airtime be free to? The politicians? Who’ll cover the loss incurred by the media outlets forced to provide this “free time”?
Who will the airtime be free to? The politicians? Who’ll cover the loss incurred by the media outlets forced to provide this “free time”?
Who will this time be free for? The poiticians? Who will cover the costs inccured by the media outlets forced to provide this “free time”? How would you determine the appropraite length of this time, and how would you determine the appropriate amount of coverage for each candidate, and which candidates even GET the “free time”?
Suddenly free air times doesn’t seem as simple, does it?
Sorry for the repeat posts..computer keeps freezing up…
Special Pleading At The Agitator
Over the past few days I’ve participated in several comment threads at The Agitator, most notably here, here, and here. Yesterday Radley Balko posted on the matter of Compelled Speech:The
I continue my comments in Special Pleading At The Agitator.
Bones, you sound like quite the conspiracy theorist. I bet you support so-called campaign-finance “reform” restrictions on your free speech, too. How dare corporations give money to people who embrace the same principles as they do!
You want to really fix it? Work on the campaign of a politician who agrees with you. Don’t give up on free speech.
Great points, Radley, and perhaps even more insightful than you realize. I’m the guy litigating the case at IJ. One of the govt’s arguments is that the ads are literally the government itself speaking, and thus immune from the First Amendment. I wonder what their position will be when the inevitable class action comes along. (And what will the dairy producers who support the ad program say when the govt decides one day that milk is bad for you and forces them to fund advertising to that effect? Silly, unprincipled people who think they will command legislative majorities forever! Someone needs to put them in touch with the gun, tobacco, and fast food industries.) And get this. The govt argues that the ad program is needed to increase demand for milk because the feds are spending too much money buying dairy products under a federal price support program. Well, duh. If the govt buys dairy at above market prices, what exactly do they figure is going to happen? Solution: end the price support program.
This is exactly how regulation in one area (economics) leads to regulation in another (speech). Which is one of the big reasons IJ is on this case (in addition, of course, to the straight up 1st Am. violation). Have to try to stop the erosion of rights wherever possible.