An argument frequently employed by our detractors is that people are not affected by the media they consume (example: Bastante Already). A good example of just how influential media can be is provided by the American experience with ADHD drugs. Usage in this decade has soared along with advertising. And once again we see lawyers employing the First Amendment–a tool primarily intended to protect political speech–to stymie regulation of commercial activities. An article in today’s Daily Hampshire Gazette tells the story:
See also:
Victor Cline: “Pornography’s Effects on Adults and Children”
…for someone to suggest that pornography cannot have an effect on you is to deny the whole notion of education, or to suggest that people are not affected by what they read and see. If you believe that a pornographic book or film cannot affect you, then you must also say that Karl Marx’s Das Kapital, or the Bible, or the Koran, or advertising have no effect on their readers or viewers…
The Impact of Internet Pornography on Marriage and the Family: A Review of the Research
[In a meta-analysis of 46 studies published in various academic journals,] Oddone-Paolucci, Genuis, and Violato found that exposure to pornographic material puts one at increased risk for developing sexually deviant tendencies [e.g., excessive or ritualistic masturbation], committing sexual offenses, experiencing difficulties in one’s intimate relationships, and accepting rape myths. In terms of the degree of risk, the analysis revealed a 31 percent increase in the risk of sexual deviancy, a 22 percent increase in the risk of sexual perpetration, a 20 percent increase in the risk of experiencing negative intimate relationships, and a 31 percent increase in the risk of believing rape myths…
American Psychological Association: Media and marketers drive girls to be sexy early; sexualization linked to eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression
…[I]n 2003, tweens–that highly coveted marketing segment ranging from 7 to 12–spent $1.6 million on thong underwear, Time magazine reported…
[The APA report] points to a 2004 study of adolescent girls in rural Fiji, linking their budding concerns about body image and weight control to the introduction of television there…
Link of Media to Violence Accepted, But Porn Has No Effect?
“More than 3,000 research projects and scientific studies between 1960 and 1992 have confirmed the connection between a steady diet of violent entertainment and aggressive and anti-social behavior.”[37] The American Academy of Pediatrics concluded: “The vast majority of studies conclude that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between media violence and real-life violence. The link is undeniable and uncontestable…”[38]
Harvard Law Professor Frederick Schauer’s “The Boundaries of the First Amendment”; Government Regulates Many Kinds of Speech
“Although the First Amendment refers to freedom of ‘speech,’ much speech remains totally untouched by it. Antitrust law, securities regulation, the law of criminal solicitation, and most of the law of evidence, for example, involve legal control of speech lying well beyond the boundaries of the First Amendment’s concern. It is not that such regulation satisfies a higher burden of justification imposed by the First Amendment. Rather, the First Amendment does not even show up in the analysis. The explanation for lack of First Amendment coverage lies not in a theory of free speech or in legal doctrine, but instead in an often serendipitous array of political, cultural, and economic factors determining what makes the First Amendment salient in some instances of speech regulation but not in others. Because the First Amendment’s cultural magnetism attracts a wide variety of claims, nonlegal factors, far more than legal ones, determine which opportunistic claims to First Amendment attention will succeed and which will not. Legal doctrine and free speech theory may explain what is protected within the First Amendment’s boundaries, but the location of the boundaries themselves–the threshold determination of what is a First Amendment case and what is not–is less a doctrinal matter than a political, economic, social, and cultural one…”
“Are we over-medicating our kids?”
by Karin Klein
…So far, 159 countries, including the United States, have agreed to ban consumer-targeted marketing of psychotropic medications – which all these ADHD drugs are – that carry the potential for addiction or dependency. For decades, pharmaceutical companies abided by its provisions.
But in 2001, one company began buying ads in the September issue of women’s magazines in the United States to draw attention to Metadate CD, a long-acting form of methylphenidate. Other companies quickly followed suit.
Called on the carpet by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, lawyers for the drug companies vowed to defend themselves under the umbrella of First Amendment speech rights. According to former DEA officials, the Department of Justice was unwilling to test this one in court.
Six years later, the results are dramatic. Doctors and therapists increasingly see parents seeking to change their child’s medication or coming in with their own diagnosis of ADHD and suggestions for medications they have seen advertised…
Children in the United States are 10 times more likely to take a stimulant medication for ADHD than are kids in Europe. The United States, the only nation to violate the U.N. treaty, consumes about 85 percent of the stimulants manufactured for ADHD…
Drug companies would argue that increased production and use of ADHD drugs are the result of better diagnosis and treatment. But the International Narcotics Control Board holds advertising responsible. In a report earlier this year, the board noted that from 2001 – when the ads first appeared – to 2005, medical consumption of methylphenidate increased by 64 percent…
See also:
Victor Cline: “Pornography’s Effects on Adults and Children”
…for someone to suggest that pornography cannot have an effect on you is to deny the whole notion of education, or to suggest that people are not affected by what they read and see. If you believe that a pornographic book or film cannot affect you, then you must also say that Karl Marx’s Das Kapital, or the Bible, or the Koran, or advertising have no effect on their readers or viewers…
The Impact of Internet Pornography on Marriage and the Family: A Review of the Research
[In a meta-analysis of 46 studies published in various academic journals,] Oddone-Paolucci, Genuis, and Violato found that exposure to pornographic material puts one at increased risk for developing sexually deviant tendencies [e.g., excessive or ritualistic masturbation], committing sexual offenses, experiencing difficulties in one’s intimate relationships, and accepting rape myths. In terms of the degree of risk, the analysis revealed a 31 percent increase in the risk of sexual deviancy, a 22 percent increase in the risk of sexual perpetration, a 20 percent increase in the risk of experiencing negative intimate relationships, and a 31 percent increase in the risk of believing rape myths…
American Psychological Association: Media and marketers drive girls to be sexy early; sexualization linked to eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression
…[I]n 2003, tweens–that highly coveted marketing segment ranging from 7 to 12–spent $1.6 million on thong underwear, Time magazine reported…
[The APA report] points to a 2004 study of adolescent girls in rural Fiji, linking their budding concerns about body image and weight control to the introduction of television there…
Link of Media to Violence Accepted, But Porn Has No Effect?
“More than 3,000 research projects and scientific studies between 1960 and 1992 have confirmed the connection between a steady diet of violent entertainment and aggressive and anti-social behavior.”[37] The American Academy of Pediatrics concluded: “The vast majority of studies conclude that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between media violence and real-life violence. The link is undeniable and uncontestable…”[38]
Harvard Law Professor Frederick Schauer’s “The Boundaries of the First Amendment”; Government Regulates Many Kinds of Speech
“Although the First Amendment refers to freedom of ‘speech,’ much speech remains totally untouched by it. Antitrust law, securities regulation, the law of criminal solicitation, and most of the law of evidence, for example, involve legal control of speech lying well beyond the boundaries of the First Amendment’s concern. It is not that such regulation satisfies a higher burden of justification imposed by the First Amendment. Rather, the First Amendment does not even show up in the analysis. The explanation for lack of First Amendment coverage lies not in a theory of free speech or in legal doctrine, but instead in an often serendipitous array of political, cultural, and economic factors determining what makes the First Amendment salient in some instances of speech regulation but not in others. Because the First Amendment’s cultural magnetism attracts a wide variety of claims, nonlegal factors, far more than legal ones, determine which opportunistic claims to First Amendment attention will succeed and which will not. Legal doctrine and free speech theory may explain what is protected within the First Amendment’s boundaries, but the location of the boundaries themselves–the threshold determination of what is a First Amendment case and what is not–is less a doctrinal matter than a political, economic, social, and cultural one…”