Open question: does advertising regulation prevent free speech?

Advocation of free speech is intellectually incompatible with government intervention in the goods market

That comes from a previous post on the (under appreciated) epistemic wisdom of Ronald Coase, and the answer still bugs me. Consider the Everton match this evening, where we had to remove our sponsor (Chang Beer) from our shirts since this breaks Norwegian laws on alcohol advertising. For me this is simply a violation of free speech - Chang are willing to pay my football club a few million pounds a year to inform me about their product. It means that when I'm in a curry house in London and realise they serve Change I get dead excited and ask to keep one of the glasses. It's win-win.

I appreciate that some people find it distasteful that this same information is being sent to children, but at the end of the day I believe that the right to communicate, and share information should outweigh people's sensibilities. I find The Sun immensely distasteful, and think that their adverts are far more harmful to children than that of Chang Beer. But I wouldn't seek to make it a criminal offense for them to advertise and don't expect my sensibilities to matter. At the end of the day there's no objective means to determine whether somethings tasteful or not, so legislation on these grounds will always result in sheer snobbery.

So I'm under the impression that any reasonable person thinks it's a little silly to force Everton to remove their sponsor from their shirts, but I also appreciate that many people advocate government intervention in the goods market. Popular support for regulations such as occupational licensing and health & safety laws are widespread, so clearly - for some of you - there's a line between banning alcoholic beverages on football shirts, and, say, forcing insurance companies to reel through their terms and conditions on a radio advert. Many people support the imposition of limitations on how non-violent companies communicate with potential customers.

So my simple question is this: if you believe in free speech, but are in favour of advertising regulation... are you a hypocrite? a moron? or what??

Comments

[Quinn]

Oh, I'm certainly a hypocrite, probably a moron. I can see what you are saying. But can you forsee a sponsorship deal you would feel was a bit strong? Everton wearing "Vote BNP" logo's? Or "Teen Dick Action"? Perhaps "Burn Muslims"? Or perhaps I have been paying too much attention to my email spam box. Whatever, although I personally agree that banning beer advetising goes a wee bit far, do you think that there is perhaps a line to be drawn somewhere, even if it may be drawn where we wouldn't wish it to be drawn?

PS. Dont you prefer the shirts without the sponsor's logo, really?

[Jim]

I don't believe in unlimited free speech - I don't think that makes me a hypocrite, but you might think it makes me a moron. I think it helps to think of speech as an action with consequences - or externalities, if you will.

In the context of messages on football shirts, I think it's worth pointing out, in case you were tempted to forget, that it's not just government that restricts free speech. When Robbie Fowler unveiled his 'Support the striking dockers' t-shirt after scoring for Liverpool, it wasn't the government who fined him and warned other players about following suit. I'd be delighted to see you explore this kind of private sector regulation for a change rather than producing yet another post about how it's only government that is 'The Problem'.

[aje]

Quinn - I can't foresee those as sponsors because I genuinely don't think the board and the fans would allow it. It doesn't need to be regulated against since general decency will suffice. The issue isn't regulation vs no regulation, but who's doing the regulating. As Jim says though, there are consequences to actions and I can see the justification of curtailing the incitement of violence. It's problematic, but I'm explicitly referring to "non violent companies" - i.e. a distinction between information that is peaceful (such as advertising beer), versus information that is encouraging rights violations (e.g. burning muslims). For me that's the line, but I'm appealing to those who would consider forcing companies to recite their terms and conditions as being worth violating free speech.

Jim - I don't think it's any surprise that I should focus on government versus private regulation. I remember at the time thinking that what Fowler did was amazing and he shouldn't be fined, but it's the FA's jurisdiction. It's a shame, but it's their call. I could write a bunch of posts complaining about private regulation but I'd rather exercise my consumer power to just boycott them. (Incidentally I do have a section called "shit service" which explicitly complains about these types of incidents).

The point though is that I make a distinctions between being wronged and merely winging. I think it's unjust to regulate advertising through coercion, I think it's annoying to regulate advertising voluntarily. That's why I focus on the former.

That's not to say that all examples of state regulation are more important to me than examples of private regulation, but with the latter I am aware that I voluntarily subscribe to them and therefore do not feel that my rights are being violated.

[aje]

p.s. yes, the shirts do look pretty cool without the sponsors. I hope the United/City precedent catches on

[Quinn]

I admit I used some extreme examples, and I can’t see any football club choosing any of those as sponsors, but if you are arguing the case for free speech then you have to answer whether or not they should be allowed as sponsors. Insofar as I don’t think that political parties or organisation espousing illegal actions should be allowed to sponsor football clubs I am happy for the matter to be taken out of the clubs hands and be dealt with by the law. As for alcohol advertising, while I have no personal objection and alcohol itself is perfectly legal, it is illegal for under-18s to drink, and so a restriction on advertising and sponsorship, especially with regards football clubs who have many underage fans, seems to me consistent with the above.

Two more things as an aside; alcohol is a contributory factor in much violence, and so I don’t think it can get a free pass on the question of it being “non-violent”, but I suppose it depends on your definition. As for free speech, I am happy to fight in favour of it when appropriate, but the right for Everton to have Chang emblazoned on their shirts doesn’t to me feel like a fundamental freedom we need to defend.

[aje]

if you are arguing the case for free speech then you have to answer whether or not they should be allowed as sponsors
Correct, but it's common for statists to argue that criticism of regulation is an advocation of having no rules. The reason I don't think government should prevent peaceful free speech is partly because I believe that alternative mechanisms of regulation are superior. I want to praise the regulatory powers of informal dialogue rather than just bash the state.

a restriction on advertising and sponsorship, especially with regards football clubs who have many underage fans, seems to me consistent with the above
It seems very dangerous to me to hold advertisers to this degree of responsibility. Only allowing alcohol advertising when you can be certain that children won't see the advert... seems the same as banning it to me.

I don’t think it can get a free pass on the question of it being “non-violent”
It seems we're on very shaky ground to equate a Fosters advert with an explicit call to violence, purely because of how a minority use the product. If there's evidence that a drinks manufacturer is creating the product to deliberately promote violence, then clearly its adverts would be morally wrong. But until then, I think it's a free pass.

the right for Everton to have Chang emblazoned on their shirts doesn’t to me feel like a fundamental freedom we need to defend
Then be rest assured that by the time you do start fighting for your rights, they'll already be gone...

[Mark O'Brien]

Hi
I run Everton Fans On Line, which is a new fans site on the fans on line network, similar to the original rivals network before Sky changed the format, largely message board based, with some editorial content produced primarily by myself.
We have only launched two months, however I'm pleased to say the Everton site attracted over One million views for the month of january.
I am always looking for new content, and wondered if you would like to submit any articles, Everton related, which would come with a link back to your blog, therefore further publicising your blog, and helping me provide different and fresh content.
It doesn't have to be original, it could be something you are already writing for your own site, and this is another platform for it, all credits going to yourself.

the site is www.fansonline.net/everton

check it out and let me know what you think

thanks
Mark O'Brien