Both Wooton and Liodice have different and compelling
reasons on why they take such stance for children’s food advertising. Wooton
believes that government regulation should be implemented into our children’s
food advertising and that certain television channels should be watchful for
what kind of food ads are being displayed in the channels that children watch. He
believes that that the CSPI guidelines is the solution to end the childhood
obesity that is going on in our society and that these criteria’s should be met
if we want them to be healthy. On the contrary, Liodice strongly disagrees with
the CSPI guidelines. He believes that it is violating the First Amendment and if
the CSPI guidelines were to be implemented it would take away those rights. He
believes that it shouldn't be the government’s duty to regulate what children
see on television to help reduce childhood obesity. I believe Liodice had the
most compelling argument because when it comes to violating the First Amendment
I am for the person who defends that right. He gave strong evidence that if
these guidelines were implemented, that would be a violation to our rights and
if that happens who know what things the government might try to slip in. It shouldn't be their responsibility to regulate what children see, it should be
their parents. The parents should be and are responsible for their health.
Hi HelloRWAR,
ReplyDeleteI also agreed with Liodice in this argument. I also think he won this argument because it should not be ip the government to decide what shows children watch. The regulation of advertisement is not a good idea because if it’s not one thing it is another issue. If the government were to regulate the ads for food in children, will they also control the cartoons who advertise different kind of foods in their shows? I do not agree with this at all and this is why the Bill of Rights was created, to defend ourselves from ideas like these that government comes up with.