Pomeranz Jennifer L
Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University, CT, USA.
J Law Med Ethics. 2010 Spring;38(1):98-116. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2010.00470.x.
The evidence reveals that young children are targeted by food and beverage advertisers but are unable to comprehend the commercial context and persuasive intent of marketing. Although the First Amendment protects commercial speech, it does not protect deceptive and misleading speech for profit. Marketing directed at children may fall into this category of unprotected speech. Further, children do not have the same First Amendment right to receive speech as adults. For the first time since the Federal Trade Commission's original attempt to regulate marketing to children in the 1970s (termed KidVid), the political, scientific, and legal climate coalesce to make the time well-suited to reevaluate the FTC's authority for action. This paper analyzes the constitutional authority for the FTC to regulate television food marketing directed at children as deceptive in light of the most robust public health evidence on the subject.
有证据表明,食品和饮料广告商将幼儿作为目标受众,但幼儿无法理解营销的商业背景和说服意图。虽然第一修正案保护商业言论,但它并不保护以盈利为目的的欺骗性和误导性言论。针对儿童的营销可能属于这类不受保护的言论。此外,儿童在第一修正案下接受言论的权利与成年人不同。自20世纪70年代联邦贸易委员会最初尝试对面向儿童的营销进行监管(称为儿童视频监管)以来,政治、科学和法律环境首次结合在一起,使得现在非常适合重新评估联邦贸易委员会采取行动的权力。本文根据关于该主题最有力的公共卫生证据,分析了联邦贸易委员会将针对儿童的电视食品营销监管为欺骗性营销的宪法权力。