TIL marketing slogans such as, "Beef. It's What's For Dinner," are considered government speech in the US
TIL marketing slogans such as, "Beef. It's What's For Dinner," are considered government speech in the US
In Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (2005), the Court, using the government speech doctrine, rejected a First Amendment challenge to a compelled advertising program.
Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (2005)
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia reasoned that the government had a First Amendment right to promote its own message regarding beef. “The message set out in the beef promotions is from beginning to end the message established by the Federal Government,” he wrote. “When, as here, the government sets the overall message to be communicated, and approves every word that is disseminated, it is not precluded from relying on the government speech doctrine merely because it solicits assistance from nongovernmental sources in developing specific messages.”
In the main dissent, Justice David H. Souter, joined by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and John Paul Stevens, wrote that “if government relies on the government speech doctrine to compel specific groups to fund speech with targeted taxes, it must make itself politically accountable by indicating that the content actually is a government message, not just the statement of one self-interested group the government is currently willing to invest with power.”
More info:
What Farm Subsidies Are and Why They Matter, Explained
The Real Cost of Meat [14:14]
The ad campaign was launched in 1992 by the National Livestock and Meat Board and is funded by the Beef Checkoff Program [USDA program that collects $1 from each sale of a bull, steer, or cow in the US]
The respondents alleged the government-required fee for advertising was compelled speech and violated their First Amendment right to free speech. The USDA argued the advertising was government speech immune from First Amendment challenge.
In the 1991 case of Rust v. Sullivan,[4] government-funded doctors in a government health program were not allowed to advise patients on obtaining abortions, and the doctors challenged this law on Free Speech grounds.[1] However, the Court held that because the program was government-funded, the doctors were, therefore, speaking on behalf of the government. Therefore, the government could say what it wishes, and “the Government has not discriminated based on viewpoint; it has merely chosen to fund one activity to the exclusion of the other."[5]
So it is a tax on trade in live cattle, earmarked for advertising, challenged by cattle owners on the grounds that it forces them to support a message contrary to what they would freely say, which I guess would be "stop eating so much beef?" I didn't know ranchers were so forward thinking.
I wish lol. It seems like they hated how vague the slogan is and wanted the right to throw shade:
The promotions issued pursuant to the Beef Act are generic in character - meaning that, among other things, they do not distinguish between the grain-fed U.S. beef produced by respondents and the grass-fed beef produced abroad, which respondents regard as inferior. Respondents object to this simplistic "beef is good" message, which obscures the quality differences between U.S. and foreign beef.
Government speech has the ability to change with every election, the Supreme Court said:
If the citizenry objects, newly elected officials later could espouse some different or contrary position.
But with voters ignoring the issue because their government tells them eggs are incredible and asks them if they got milk? With them choosing not to advertise plant based foods as legitimate alternatives with the same pizzazz?
We're fighting industry messaging fed to us by our government, from our first school lunch all the way to senior meal programs, which serves to funnel money to the big corporations that control the market. The corporations use their money to bankroll politicians for more influence and more funding in the next farm bill. The cycle continues.
No matter what we buy or don't buy, they continue unfazed knowing 40% of food gets thrown away and that many of the animals they breed into existence are destined for the dumpster. They rake in cash regardless because our food system was built by and for corporations.
It's absurd and overwhelming, and it's time Uncle Sam and the Cowboys got a divorce.
Amen Also, username checks out