New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | May 27, 2005

Why is the government trying to give the First Amendment a hot beef injection? Jacob Sullum investigates.

Comments

|5.27.05 @ 3:22PM|#

Theft: It's What's For Dinner.

Got Tyranny?

Other People's Money: The Other White Meat.

|5.27.05 @ 3:25PM|#

And speaking of ads, I'm getting really tired of that carpet-humping guy.

KipEsquire|5.27.05 @ 3:28PM|#

Perhaps the saddest part is that the whole question of whether advertising beef is a proper function of government in the first place never came up. This was deemed strictly a First Amendment issue.

|5.27.05 @ 3:29PM|#

m:

Get with the times! Anybody who's anybody uses Mozilla Firefox! I haven't seen carpet-humper in months, thank god. Or, any other Reason ads, for that matter.

|5.27.05 @ 3:33PM|#

Kip,

Given the millions of functions that are grossly improper uses of government, this is but a drop in the ocean. Oh, check out the latest congressional budget, and scroll down to the pork sections. After seeing some of that tripe, advertisements for beef seem Jeffersonian by comparison.

|5.27.05 @ 3:39PM|#

I guess I'm just flat-out confused by this. By what Constitutional right does the federal government force businesspeople to advertise their product? If I sell a product I can choose to advertise that product or not, but I can't be forced to advertise, can I?

|5.27.05 @ 3:41PM|#

Initially I was going to ask who this carpet-humper guy is. Then suddenly I realized in a moment of discomfort how frequently he manifests my computer screen each day, without my conscious attention. I don't even want to think about what sort of subliminal messages my brain is interepreting every time my eyes graze that ad.

|5.27.05 @ 3:52PM|#

I was confused when I found out that the feds were behind those beef ads. I always thought they were just done by a group of beef producers trying to compete with other types of food and/or health concerns.

Then I found out that the government does a lot of those types of commercials (milk, pork, etc.) and I was even more confused. Why do this? Who are they competing against? Themselves? Are we in danger of having our economy based too much on chicken?

Someone please explain this to me.

blah|5.27.05 @ 3:52PM|#

I always think of man-boy love when I see the Reason ad of the two guys hugging. "give the gift of reason, but face the other way for a little bit here buddy."

|5.27.05 @ 3:56PM|#

A week ago I had a big craving for beef. Maybe not enough iron in my diet. So my wife and I made a pot roast with a red wine sauce. Yummy.

|5.27.05 @ 4:01PM|#

mmmm...carpet humping guy.....

|5.27.05 @ 4:09PM|#

Perhaps the saddest part is that the whole question of whether advertising beef is a proper function of government in the first place never came up.

True enough. One would think that PETA would be on this like the proverbiable dog on a Dreamsicle. I dunno - maybe they're afraid someone might perceive them as being (gasp) anti-government, or (more likely) they don't see enough opportunity in it for camera-mugging...

|5.27.05 @ 4:26PM|#

PETA actually did bring suit against California for a series of beef commercials that portrayed happy cows grazing on verdant rolling hills or some such thing, on the grounds that this constituted false advertising in light of the less-pleasant conditions under which cows are raised. The court ruled that the state's exempt from false advertising laws.

|5.27.05 @ 5:09PM|#

What exactly is government speech? A government does not produce speech.

|5.27.05 @ 5:17PM|#

Why do this? Who are they competing against? Themselves? Are we in danger of having our economy based too much on chicken?

Farm subsidies: the other corporate welfare. USDA subsidies over 8 years in Wisconson have hauled in $3.1 trillion -- $1.6 trillion just for corn. Actual farmers there who aren't incorporated generally see about $800 per year - equipment depreciation on small farm per year is roughly ten times as much.

Warren|5.27.05 @ 5:23PM|#

And I had such hopes after the interstate wine case. I guess this courts theory of the constitution is: The fedral government has all the power. We can do what ever the fuck we want with it.

|5.27.05 @ 5:39PM|#

Fancy a shag?

|5.27.05 @ 6:05PM|#

Its funny, but if you go to the carpet humpers site, you can read about many of the exercises and fill in the blanks for the rest. Don't know why anyone would buy it.

But since he is an advertiser for Reason, do it anyway. Hurry.

|5.27.05 @ 6:24PM|#

I have it on pretty good authority that the Matt Furey (sp) workout plan is quite good for building endurance.

His chosen method of self-promotion, however, leaves much to be desired.

|5.27.05 @ 10:34PM|#

Re: Carpet Humper Guy

I don't worry so much about the unconscious affects that the ad is having on me.

I do, however, worry about what other people think when they come into the office and sees me focused on a screen that has the big carpet-humper ad prominently displayed.

|5.27.05 @ 10:51PM|#

This is totally bogus! I demand equal time for fish! It's discrimination against non-air breathers and cold blooded animals! We need to actively promote that fish don't contribute to green house gasses by passing it out their asses!

What do we want? Sushi!
When do we want it? Now!