Affirmative Case: September/October 1999

You come home from a long days work. You read the newspaper and then set down to watch some television. You channel surf for awhile until you can find something good on. You stop once you see an advertisement that catches your eye. In the advertisement, they are poking fun at your culture. You become infuriated because these people are making fun of your culture, your beliefs, and you in order to try and make a few bucks. This is a scenario that happens often in today's society and which leads me to affirm the resolution which states Resolved: When they conflict, respect for cultural sensitivity ought to be valued above the commercial use of free speech.

In order to make sure the resolution is clear, I offer the following definitions taken from Webster's American College Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
conflict- to be in opposition, clash.
respect- to relate or have reference to.
culture-the totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, beliefs, and all other products of human work and thought characteristic of a community or population.
sensitivity- the state or quality of being sensitive.
ought- moral obligation or duty.
valued- relative worth or importance.
commercial- produced or marketed, with emphasis on salability.
free speech- the right of people to express their opinions publicly without government interference.

The highest value in today's debate is that of human dignity. Human dignity is respect for people and for their cultures. When culturally offensive advertising is used, it attacks the human dignity of those being offended showing a lack of respect for those people and their culture. Human dignity is something that every person needs to feel good about themselves.

I will support my value through the criteria of Mill's Harm Principle. Mill's Harm Principle is based on the theory that men should be given all the freedoms they can handle until it either directly or indirectly harms someone else. Businesses should be allowed to advertise and use free speech unless it harms someone in order to make a profit.

I will uphold the resolution with three contentions: Culturally Insensitive Advertising is morally wrong; When they conflict, businesses are violating Mill's Harm Principle; and finally, Culturally Insensitive advertising can lower respect for cultures in society.

Let's first direct our attention to CONTENTION ONE: Culturally Insensitive Advertising is Morally wrong.
It is morally wrong because it is using the people in a culture's dignity to make money and it is not morally just according to Mills harm principle. First, culturally insensitive advertising is morally wrong because it is using the people in a culture to make money. J. Nowak, author of Constitutional Law, states "Commercial speech most narrowly constructed is any speech or publication that advertises a product or service for profits or business purposes." Basically, forms of commercial speech are used solely for making money. When they are using culturally insensitive advertising to make money, they are using that culture in attempts to make more money which is not morally justified. People's dignity should be valued above making money. Second, it is not morally just according to Mills harm principle. In today's society most things that hurt other people are not considered morally just. For example, I have the right to make fun of the other kids in my classes under political free speech, however, it is not considered moral for me to call them names and make fun of them simply because I have the right. It is not moral for businesses to make fun of cultures simply because they wish to make money. Making money and expressing themselves is alright for businesses except when they harm people which brings me to

CONTENTION TWO: When they Conflict, Businesses are Violating Mill's Harm Principle.
According to Mill's Harm Principle, businesses should have all the free speech they can handle until they hurt someone, if they do conflict, the businesses should change their advertisements, and finally, not making fun of cultures will not harm cultures. First, businesses should have all the free speech they can handle until they hurt someone. Businesses should be allowed to advertise their products. However, they should not have the right to sell their products at another culture's expense. As Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." Second, when the businesses find out they are offending a culture they should change their advertising. Granted, not every culturally insensitive thing is going to be noticed before it is aired. However, if an advertisement is later found to be offensive, the business has the moral responsibility to change it and show respect and dignity towards the people they offended. Third, not being culturally insensitive will not hurt the profits of a business. A business does not need to tear down people's culture in order to sell products. Products can be advertised in other ways such as displaying all the good features of the product or using culturally sensitive advertising. In doing so, the business will not be hurt and probably even gain business when they do not offend other cultures. When they use culturally insensitive advertising they not only lower the dignity of the members of that culture but can have other harms as well, which leads me to

CONTENTION THREE: Culturally Insensitive Advertising can Lower Respect for Cultures in Society.
It does this by reinforcing negative stereotypes of cultures in society and teaching future generations to be culturally insensitive. First, culturally disrespectful uses of commercial free speech can further negative stereotypes. Advertisers often use stereotypes to represent a particular culture in order to sell products. Not all of these stereotypes and icons are positive however. According to Joshep Boskin, "Once a stereotype of a group is solidly etched in American folklore, it becomes permanently embedded in people's minds and profoundly affects thoughts and actions." So if these stereotypes are what people see all the time they will start to believe them creating communication barriers between the different cultures. Second, commercially insensitive advertising teaches future generations to be culturally insensitive. Commercials and other forms of commercial speech greatly affect the attitudes and behaviors of not only the adults in society, but also the children. As Judith Van Evra, author of Television and Child Development, once said, "As most children spend more time engaged in television viewing than any other single activity besides school, television's impact on their cognitive, social, and affective development cannot be overemphasized." Basically, children interpret a considerable amount of their beliefs about life and other cultures through advertisements and television. If there is much culturally disrespectful advertising on television, these children will interpret that the cultures really are like that, reinforcing a negative stereotype. This will make it harder for cultures to get along in the future because we will have a more culturally insensitive society.

In conclusion, I have given you three reasons to affirm the resolution which were Culturally Insensitive Advertising is morally wrong; When they conflict, businesses are violating Mill's Harm Principle; and finally, Culturally Insensitive advertising can lower respect for cultures in society. Businesses should have rights to speak, but should not have the right to offend and take away the dignity of people. I would like to leave you with this though, is it moral to disrespect a culture merely to make money? My answer is no. I am now open for cross examination.