Ethics and Freedom of Speech

Ethics and Freedom of Speech

Introduction

Manipulative advertising has been a subject of debate for decades. When it comes to cigarette smoking, women are at a greater disadvantage compared to men when it comes to the negative health impact of smoking. Both genders are prone to suffer from the consequences of smoking, including increased risk of different cancers such as lungs, pharynx, mouth, kidney, among others, as well as respiratory diseases. Additionally, women can experience reproductive damage, reduced fertility, difficulty in conceiving even as their hormones are affected. Smoking while pregnant can also harm the fetus and result in low birth weight, poor lung development, birth defects such as cleft lip, and sudden infant death. When youth are encouraged to smoke electronic cigarettes, more so females, it will affect not only their health but the public health as well. The likelihood of a population reduction will be increased, and so too birth of unhealthy babies. Our assignment writing help is at affordable prices to students of all academic levels and disciplines.

History of Bernay’s Torches of Freedom Campaign

Bernay’s was the first to come up with the theory that people could be manipulated to want things they did not necessarily need through appealing to their unconscious desires. He believed that for a society to function better, then it needed to have these hidden desires met; otherwise, people would get overwhelmed with the numerous choices. The Torches of Freedom campaign commodified the desire and progress of women to be viewed as equal to men (Wilcox et al., 2013). However, the manipulative campaign failed to mention the downside of popularizing cigarette smoking among women

Comparison of Electronic Cigarette Campaign and “Torches of Freedom Campaign”

In this assignment’s case scenario, utilitarian morality comes into play. The cigarette-making company strives to be helpful to its consumers by offering a product and making the consumers happy.  However, as the company aims at making the majority of its consumers happy, the rest of the non-smoking public, including the said consumers, will be negatively affected. Secondhand smoke, a possible reduction in the population, and healthcare costs will increase in the future as the economy struggles to care for the then adults who started smoking as youth. In the same way that the Torches of Freedom sought to manipulate women to smoke and seek their equality with men, so too the electronic cigarettes; the latter is a manipulative strategy to give youth the freedom to smoke despite the harmful effects it has on their health.

PRSA Code of Ethics

The PRSA Code of Ethics calls for the disclosure of information with the intent being ‘to build trust with the public by revealing all information needed for responsible decision making.’ The code also calls for professionals to work on strengthening the public’s trust in the profession. By agreeing to advertise cigarettes to the youth, the profession’s image will be negatively affected by promoting smoking initiation among the youth. The code also calls for a fair representation of the clients and supports the right to free expression. The client, in this case, wants to make a profit from its business, but the strategy it intends to use is detrimental to the public; the PR firm will need to come to a level ground where the client will need to disclose the effects of cigarette smoking and leave the decision making to the consumer (PRSA, n.d).

Freedom of Speech and Ethical Communication

As mentioned earlier, freedom of speech should be upheld as per the PRSA code. The company has a right to sell products to consumers and make a profit from them. They can use persuasion to convince customers to purchase their product. Freedom of speech also gives them room to use manipulation as Barney and the Torches of Freedom campaign did. However, the campaign is unethical in its nature as it seeks to manipulate the youth to smoke whilst the short- and long-term dangers of smoking are well documented. Ethical communication will take precedence over freedom of speech. The company needs to be honest in its advertisement and clearly spell out the dangers of smoking among the youth.

My Participation

On an individual level, I would not participate in this campaign as my moral conscience would condemn me for supporting smoking among the youth. However, I will need to abide by the PRSA Code of Ethics and accept the business but on specific terms, also stipulated by the PRSA. The company will have to clearly indicate a disclaimer on their product and advertisements on the harmful effects of electronic cigarettes.

Conclusion

The electronic cigarette campaign is in no way different from the Torches of Freedom campaign. These two are manipulative in wanting to appeal to the unconscious desires of consumers. The advertising company has to adhere to the ORSA code of ethics and take a utilitarian stand in protecting the public while respecting the company’s freedom of speech.

References

PRSA.org (n.d). PRSA Code of Ethics. https://www.prsa.org/about/prsa-code-of-ethics

Wilcox, D. L., Cameron, G. T., Reber, B. H., & Shin, J. H. (2013). Think public relations. Pearson Higher Ed.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Ethics and Freedom of Speech

Review pages 49 and 51 about Edward L. Bernays and his “Torches of Freedom” campaign.

Apply your ethics. Imagine you are working at a large PR firm. Your newest client is an electronic cigarette company. The client asks you to help improve public perception of its product, particularly among young adults. You feel that because the long-term health effects are unknown, it violates your ethical responsibility, although nothing the client asks you to do is illegal.

Write a 500-750-word paper. Include the following:

From an ethical perspective, is the above campaign comparable to Bernays’s “Torches of Freedom” campaign or is one potentially more unethical? Why?
What aspects of the PRSA Code of Ethics might condemn or support working on this campaign?
In a scenario such as this, how does the interaction between freedom of speech and ethical communication play out? Does one take precedence over the other?
Would you participate in this campaign? Why or why not?
Include two or more scholarly resources.