Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Case Over Gun-Safety Ads Fosters Unlikely Alliance
This article discusses a recent case in the Arizona State Legislature based on an ad stating "Guns Save Lives." The city of Phoenix wanted the ads removed, but the business (offering gun-safety lessons) which posted the ad claims this violated their First Amendment rights. Although the First Amendment debate always offers interesting discussion, the more important factor in this article is the unlikely groups which have come together because of this case. Groups with different ideologies rarely see eye to eye as we know, for our two-party system is so divided, but this case seems to be different. The article continues discussing details of the ad, and history in court cases with similar themes, but it will be interesting what the verdict will be.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
“This is about whether the city can tell people what they can say or not." I believe that the freedom of speech needs to be followed as it is written in the constitution. This case could set a precedent and soon freedom of speech would mean nothing. Everyone should be able to flex their rights. Especially if it is a topic like gun control.No matter your views, you should abide by the constitution. The first amendment was written for a reason.
ReplyDeleteIt is pointless that this even became a controversial issue. We have the right to free speech, and whether or not you agree with the ad is your personal business. The city has no right to tell people what they can say. In addition, the overall reason for the ad was to educate and inform; it didn't mean to spike an argument. It expresses personal opinion which is a freedom we are granted in the first amendment.
ReplyDeleteI don't really know how I feel about gun control, but I do think this case presents an interesting view. If the ads were placed in bus shelters owned by the city, wouldn't the city have to approve whoever wanted to advertise there? I don't know the laws on this, but if that is true, then this case could be avoided.I think advertisements are absolutely a gray area and very subjective.
ReplyDeleteThis issue should have previously been settled by the court ruling of Services Corps. Vs. Velazquez, in which it was decided that government subsidies do not possess the right to discriminate against viewpoint advocacy
ReplyDeleteThis ad was published by a company that provides gun safety lessons, so they certainly have the freedom to express what they said on their advertisements. If this business does properly instruct people on gun safety, then they should be allowed to say what they want on their advertisements. It's freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteThis case is interesting because it combines first amendment rights with another controversial issue, gun control. Although I am for stricter gun control I think that it is also important to keep in mind the first amendment. If a person wants to advertise for their business they should be able to do that.
ReplyDeleteLike Katie, I am also in favor of stricter gun control, but believe that in this situation freedom of speech needs to be taken into account. If other organizations can put up advertisements on their beliefs of controversial issues like abortion, this company should have the same right. It has to be the same for any belief of any issue.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with Casey here. The challenge of making regulations is that it is impossible to customize them to specific cases, but the founders were definitely aware of this. I think this company should be allowed this freedom too, because as Pochada explained in the article, this issue does not focus on ideology but rather constitutional issues.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Casey on this issue too. Because the first amendment gives everyone the right to free speech, we have to accept that people with different views than us are going to exercise their right. This ad should not have sparked an argument because I don't think the company was doing anything out of the ordinary with their ad, they were just expressing their views.
ReplyDeleteI understand where the city of phoenix is coming from on this issue, but I disagree with their behavior. If you start limiting the freedom of speech of one person/company, you limit everyone's freedom of speech. Where would it stop?Freedom of speech is a right essential to our democracy, and therefore it should remain untouched.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand why this is such an issue. The first amendment clearly states that you have freedom of speech. I don't know how someone could argue against this company's decision to publish the ad. You may not agree with it, but that doesn't mean you can keep them from sharing their opinion.
ReplyDeleteplaying the devil's advocate, the first amendment does not in fact guarantee freedom of speech, but rather prohibits congress from making any laws restraining it.
DeleteThis issue should fall in favor of the businessman who posted the advertisement. The ad is controversial, but he has the right to post it. I found this article so intriguing because it displayed an issue that pertained to both the first and second amendments.
ReplyDeleteI have no set belief about the issue of gun-safety laws but i think that there are precautions that can be taken place to prevent many of the gun involved incidents that keep happening all over the United States. When it comes to this advertisement I think that it is their own opinion and we can't exactly limit what they are saying through this image.
ReplyDeleteI have no strong stance for or against gun control but I think this article's more important issue, is the issue of the first amendment. If you are going to regulate the first amendment, then why is it even in place? This first amendment is there for a reason and every citizen has the same rights to use it.
ReplyDeleteLike the article prefaced itself with, this issue brought together two unlikely groups. One of the only things liberals care more about than gun control, is their first amendment rights. So it makes sense that the ACLU is involved. This case is about the first amendment not gun control.
ReplyDeleteI think this article shows the ability for law to bring both parties together. Considering how many politicians are also lawyers and all politicians are well versed in law, thinking about things in legal terms is a good way to eliminate ideological influence and promote a logical assessment of problems.
ReplyDeleteThis shouldn't even be an argument. Whatever your stance on gun control laws, the business had the right to say what they wanted on their ads. Like Griffin said, hopefully looking to law rather than political ideologies when facing hot-button issues will help our government to solve its problems.
ReplyDelete