Robert Liodice and Margo G.Wootan have different positions
on whether the government should have regulations on food commercial or not.
Wootan supports regulations on food commercials because he finds the commercials
to promote unhealthy eating and is leading to the increase in child obesity. He
feels that the government would help control these factors by limiting the
marketing strategies that such company as McDonalds could use. On the other
hand, Liodice does not support the fact of government being able to regulate
commercials. He believes that controlling commercials by manufactures violates
the first amendment, which is the right of freedom of speech. I believe that
Liodice has a better argument purely based on the fact that his argument is
based upon an idea that is placed in the U.S. constitution. Wootan ideas are
basically yet factual, based on his opinion that if the government is allowed
to put restrictions on the marketing that it will decrease child obesity which
may not always be the case.
I thought Liodice’s argument was stronger too. It just felt like Wootan was asking a little too much in restricting unhealthy food advertisements. I do think it is important for children to lean more towards eating healthier foods but I don’t think that keeping businesses from advertising their product is the best way to go about it. When it comes down to it, I believe the bill of rights should always be upheld. Even though the restriction would seem like a small adjustment to the first amendment, I think it is still potentially dangerous in that it can lead to other adjustments to the constitution.
ReplyDelete