The Impact of Morality, Religion, and Law Upon Advertising Essay

The Impact of Morality, Religion, and Law Upon Advertising Religion and other value systems are certainly crucial in defining and sanctioning sex and decency. Moslem countries tend to frown upon all kinds of salacious displays and even indirect sexual references. Similar Christian standards operate in such countries as Ireland, South Africa, Mexico, and the Philippines. Other cultures may be considered rather tolerant in sexual matters (for example, French commercials on public television readily show live semi-nude models) but may prohibit any show of pubic hair (Japan), the promotion of contraceptives (France), or the lewd use of women (Scandinavia and the Netherlands) in advertisements. Values change, however. Thus, the spread of AIDS has reopened the issue of advertising condoms and other contraceptives in a totally different context, which transcends the older concerns about birth control and venereal-disease prevention. The law usually parallels religious and moral standards. There are often statutes dealing with public indecency (in Switzerland, Thailand, and the United Kingdom), the moral protection of minors, the restriction of violent displays (including sado-masochistic ones), and discriminatory job advertisements (particularly in Australia, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Restrictions on the publication and circulation of "sexy" magazines of the Playbqy variety, with their usually more risque ads, also belong to this category (Argentina, Lebanon, South Africa, and Thailand). Reflecting concerns about "sexist" portrayals, a 1979 amendment to the 1972 Norwegian Marketing Control Law states: An advertiser and anyone who creates advertising matter shall ensure that the advertisement does not conflict with the inherent parity between the sexes, and that it does not imply any derogatory judgment of either sex or portray a woman or a man in an offensive manner." Similar provisions have been enacted in India, Peru, and Portugal to protect women against indecent or derogatory representations. Still, the matter of constitutional freedom of speech as applied to advertising has raised serious questions concerning control of sex and decency in advertising. Swedish courts, for example, have not sustained some initiatives of the Consumer Ombudsman in this matter; and the Swedish Parliament sta... ...and P.R. Parsons, "Self-Regulation and Magazine Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 18, 4 (1989): 33-40. Randall Rothenberg, Condom Makers Change Approach," New York, Times, August 8, 1988, p. D1. Colin Shaw, Sex and Violence, Plus Decent Research," Marketing Review (UK), February 1989, pp. 6-7. Sherry B. Valan, Broadcast Ad Standards for Personal Products," Advertising Compliance Service, December 21, 1987, pp. 5-7. Laurel Wentz, AIDS: Condom Advertising Charts Broader Course Overseas," Advertising, Age, March 9, 1987, p. 62. Aubrey Wilson and Christopher West, The Marketing of Unmentionables,"' Harvard Business Review, January-February 1981, pp. 91 102. World Federation of Advertisers, "The Portrayal of Women in Advertisements" (Brussels, April 1988). R.G. Wyckham, "Self-Regulation of Sex Role Stereotyping in Advertising: The Canadian Experience," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 6 (1987): 76-92. Jean J. Boddewyn is a professor of marketing and international business at Baruch College, City University of New York. Heidi Kunz is an assistant vice president and financial controller with FISERV, Inc., New York.

Baseball and Antitrust Laws Essay

Any commerce with operations spanning state boundaries, thus undertaking interstate trade, is governed by antitrust laws. Efforts at monopolizing and controlling trade could be regarded unlawful by national circuit courts as per the Clayton and Sherman Acts. Baseball has always been immune from such antitrust regulations from 1922, upon the Supreme Court’s verdict made baseball winner in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore, Inc. v. National Baseball Clubs. It was determined that although planning of sports was done across State boundaries, such games constituted intrastate occasions since movement from state to state was not essential (Falk, 1994). The antirust immunity bars MLB from being legally challenged because of national antirust braches. Unless such immunity is removed by Congress, baseball proprietors make whatever decisions they wish because no antirust-related legal proceedings can be instituted against them. Whenever the proprietors attempt to modify baseball, the MLBPA quickly comes in to claim that they were not consulted (Bendix, 2008). Despite the fact that proprietors may do whatever they wish disregarding antitrust regulations, nothing which breaches the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) can be done. Such agreement requires that almost each dispute be mediated, like it is done with numerous labor deals. If the antirust immunity of baseball was cancelled, would this mean the changing of baseball? This is unlikely since the same regulations that govern NHL, NFL, and NBA would continue to govern baseball. The USA at the moment has antitrust regulations meant to bar businesses from controlling specific markets. Nevertheless, US baseball market has been monopolized by key league baseball for ages, thus preventing upcoming players from actually gaining footage. The US Supreme Court has defended Major League Baseball’s (MLB) liberty to monopolize in a number of instances. MLB remains the sole US monopoly in numerous ways, and has remained so from its beginning. Upon the 1903 merger of the National League (NL) with the American League (AL), such partnership immediately proved successful. Such success was surely bound to invite imitation. Therefore a different baseball league almost immediately demonstrated willingness to challenge the NL/AL monopoly. The Federal League began as an insignificant league; however, it espoused key intentions (Anderson, 2002). By 1914, numerous individuals regarded such Federal League to be a main league; the league itself desired to officially confirm this. The Federal League (FL) took legal action against Major League Baseball on 5th January 1915 for disrupting their efforts at hiring players who were between agreements that is, not governed by the Reserve Clause, from the American National League, citing national antitrust law. The case was heard by Kennesaw Mountain Landhis, reputed for his firm observance of the law. However, Ladhis was as well a big fan of Chicago Cubs. He knew that the Federal League’s case was a justifiable one, however, his favorite team, the Cubs, would suffer if FL won the case, and thus Ladhis kept such case under advisement as opposed to immediately issuing a verdict. The FL’s 19156 collapse made everyone happy. The Baltimore Federal League license proprietors tried to buy out a team of the Major League (ML) only to be rejected. They subsequently attempted to purchase a franchise of the International league; they were once more rejected. The proprietor of White Sox, Chalets Chomsky, offended Baltimore city by saying that the metropolis constituted a bad and insignificant league. Charles Ebbets, the proprietor of Dodgers, added to the insult by stating that the metropolis was among the worst insignificant league metropolis because of having excess colored people. The perspective proprietors then took legal action against ML baseball, alleging a scheme to tear down the FL. In April 1919, a law court declared the Baltimore proprietors the winners of the suit, thus awarding them damages worth $240,000. An appeal was instituted in 1920, with the appeal ruling being made in 1921 (Barra, 2003). The 1921 ruling nullified the decision of the junior court and declared that baseball did not constitute the type of trade national law ought to standardize. The US Supreme Court endorsed such a ruling on May 22nd 1922, thus strengthening baseball’s antitrust immunity. In the Federal Baseball Club v. National League, the Supreme Court gave the verdict that ML baseball remained immune from the Sherman Antitrust Act provisions. Following the 1915 folding of the FL, majority of the FL proprietors were purchased by proprietors within the other MLs, or had received compensation in other modes. For instance, St. Louis FL owner was authorized to purchase the St Louis Browns. Baltimore Federal League club owner did not get this authorization and hence he took legal action against the American league, National League, as well as additional defendants, such as a number of FL officials. The suit alleged a plot to dominate baseball through demolishing the FL (Rovell, 2001). The listed defendants were declared jointly answerable, with $80,000 worth of damages assessed. The figure was tripled to total $240,000 as per the Clayton Antitrust Act provisions. Such immunity, as well as the monopoly of MLB, was unchallenged up to 1972. Curt Flood took legal action against baseball following his sale to Philadelphia Phillies from the Saint Louis Cardinals following 1969’s season. Such a case ultimately reached the Supreme Court, where the initial decision was endorsed with Congress left to rectify the inconsistency. Despite the fact that Flood did not win the case, he set the precedence for wage negotiation, and immediately afterwards, free action. At the moment free agency survives, however such antitrust immunity is as well law. Baseball was not to be awarded antitrust immunity if the Baltimore League squad owners had been reimbursed after the league was disbanded. All other squad’s proprietors were compensated with the exception of Baltimore, thus prompting their filing of the initial antitrust lawsuit. Such immunity is suspect, and several observers are convinced that it may once more be upheld in a law court. Nevertheless, from the Flood case of 1972, no any one case has been even close to being heard at the Supreme Court (Barra, 2006). In addition MLB’s domination has not been challenged by any league since the 1950s unsuccessful Continental League. The National Federal League has been engrossed in majority of the major antitrust court cases, such as, its lawsuits against the US Football League. Such cases have demonstrated that antitrust lawsuits are not essentially fatal. Despite that fact that the NFL lost the two cases, numerous lawsuits have been previously won by sports leagues. In antitrust lawsuits, such leagues have to demonstrate that they did not breach antitrust regulations through demonstrating that their activities generally, served to promote contest more as opposed to inhibiting it. Despite the fact that Al Davis legally defeated the NFL, the NFL could as well have emerged victorious if it possessed an unambiguous guidelines and adhered to them rather than acting because they particularly disliked Al Davis (Bartree, 2005). In addition, despite the fact that USFL legally beat NFL, a mere $3 worth of damages was awarded. If the US Congress completely revokes the antirust immunity of baseball, some interesting enduring consequences could result. Firstly, the key leagues are to be affected. Insignificant-league baseball t the moment relies on the ongoing presence of the Reserve Clause , which permits major-league teams to legally control players even following the expiry of the players’ contracts. Such Reserve Clause permits the existence of deep insignificant-league structures within baseball by permitting such teams to control numerous players not in their key-league rosters. NBA and NFL do not have any minor-league structures. Hockey has insignificant-league squads; however, such are mediated into the joint bargaining of hockey with the players. The Reserve Clause is likely to be legally challenged if the antitrust immunity of baseball is lost. In case such clause is determined to breach antitrust regulations, baseball squads could be forced surrender the legal claims to a number of or even every of their insignificant-league players. With no interest to develop the team members whom they formerly controlled, big-league squads would be less motivated to offer support to their insignificant-league partners through subsidizing their activities (Blum, 2001). This has thus made insignificant leagues lobby Congress to uphold the antitrust immunity of baseball. Without such immunity insignificant leagues would be forced to modify their activities, to become more similar to free insignificant early 1900s leagues rather than be under MLB. Proprietors would have no power regarding discussing with team members due to lack of legal standing to possess a Reserve Clause. When squads have no rights over team members, there will be less willingness to recruit high school players and accord them 4 or 5 development years, particularly if they are forced to dwell much on major league rosters. This could imply a major impetus fro baseball in colleges, and perhaps also for global baseball leagues (Rovell, 2001). Such would form the major MLB’s propagation ground as has been for basketball and football. If the antitrust immunity is revoked, franchise transfer, and particularly contraction, would from the greatest challenge. Close to thirty years have elapsed since a single baseball squad relocated from one metropolis to the other. Since that time, the other 3 games have progressed since the antitrust immunity grants baseball proprietors extra authority to bar squads from relocating than the proprietors have within other games. Such authority was especially apparent in 1992 at the time when the Tampa/St. Petersburg Vince Piazza’s group wanted to purchase the Giants from Bob Lurie at $115 million. The proprietors declined to allow such sale, and then compelled Lurie to accept $100 million from Peter Mogowan for the squad. Piazza instituted legal proceedings against MLB, actually winning the initial round of the case. The court stated that the antitrust immunity did not cover relocations (Belth, 2001). However, the Curt Flood Act currently holds that immunity does touch on relocations. Absence of antitrust immunity makes it hard to bar teams from relocating by the MLB. Attempts to block relocations would surely be met with lawsuits instituted by the cities or teams that were attempting to relocate. Baseball would be tasked with the responsibility to demonstrating that barring such relocation would benefit contest, plus that the resolution was founded on unambiguous guidelines. If Congress repealed the immunity, the contraction war would most likely not be based on Twin’s release and labor deals. Contraction challengers would posit that the proprietors were attempting to get rid of 2 competitors so as to raise profits; this is a typical antitrust breach (Falk, 1994). The proprietors would be forced to defend such relocation arguing that they were enhancing competition within the game. It is difficult to determine whether America or baseball would benefit if the antitrust immunity of baseball is revoked. Attorneys would surely benefit owing to increased lawsuits. The proprietors would benefit since the MLB has previously won against attempts to revoke the immunity and Congress always takes it time. References Anderson, P. (2002). Recent major league baseball contraction cases. Retrieved august 4th 2009, from http://law. marquette. edu/cgi-bin/site. pl? 2130&pageID=474 Barra, A. (2003). Policy debate: Should the antitrust exemption be eliminated? Retrieved august 4th 2009, from http://swcollege. com/bef/policy_debates/baseball. html Barra, A. (2006). Policy debate: Should the antitrust exemption be eliminated? Retrieved august 4th 2009, from http://www. swlearning. com/economics/policy_debates/baseball. html Bartree, H. (2005). The role of antirust laws in the professional sports industry from a financial perspective. Retrieved august 4th 2009, from http://www. thesportjournal. org/article/role-antitrust-laws-professional-sports-industry-financial-perspective Belth, A. (November 26th 2001). Ending baseballs antitrust exemption. Retrieved august 4th 2009, from http://courses. cit. cornell. edu/econ352jpw/readme/Baseball%20Prospectus%20-%20Ending%20Baseball%27s%20Antitrust%20Exemption. htm Bendix, P. (December 3rd 2008). The history of baseball’s antitrust exemption. Retrieved august 4th 2009, from http://www. beyondtheboxscore. com/2008/12/3/678134/the-history-of-baseball-s Blum, R. (June 12th 2001). Why is the antitrust exemption important? Retrieved august 4th 2009, from http://www. usatoday. com/sports/baseball/stories/2001-12-05-antitrust-explanation. htm

The Lowell Mill Girls in the 19th Century

The Lowell Mill Girls were female workers in early 19th century America, young women employed in an innovative system of labor in textile mills centered in Lowell, Massachusetts. The employment of women in a factory was  novel to the point of being revolutionary. And the system of labor in the Lowell mills became widely admired because the young women were housed in an environment that was not only safe but reputed to be culturally advantageous. The young women were encouraged to engage in educational pursuits while not working, and they even contributed articles to a magazine, The Lowell Offering.   Lowell System Employed Young Women Francis Cabot Lowell founded the Boston Manufacturing Company, prompted by the increased demand for cloth during the War of 1812. Using the latest technology, he built a factory in Massachusetts which used water power to run machines that processed raw cotton into finished fabric. The factory needed workers, and Lowell wanted to avoid using child labor, which was commonly used in fabric mills in England. The workers did not need to be physically strong, as the work was not strenuous. However, the workers had to be fairly intelligent to master the complicated machinery. The solution was to hire young women. In New England, there were a number of girls who had some education, in that they could read and write. And working in the textile mill seemed like a step up from working on the family farm. Working at a job and earning wages was an innovation in the early decades of the 19th century when many Americans still worked on family farms or at small family businesses. And for young women at the time, it was considered an opportunity to assert some independence from their families despite being paid less than men. The company set up boardinghouses to provide safe places for the women employees to live, and also imposed a strict moral code. Lowell Became Center of Industry Francis Cabot Lowell, the founder of the Boston Manufacturing Company, died in 1817. But his colleagues continued the company  and built a larger and improved mill along the Merrimack River in a town they renamed in Lowells honor. In the 1820s and 1830s, Lowell and its mill girls became fairly famous. In 1834, faced with increased competition in the textile business, the mill cut the workers wages, and the workers responded by forming the Factory Girls Association, an early labor union. The efforts at organized labor were not successful, however. In the late 1830s, the housing rates for the female mill workers were raised, and they attempted to hold a strike, but it did not succeed. They were back on the job within weeks. Mill Girls and Their Cultural Programs The mill girls became known for engaging in cultural programs centered around their boardinghouses. The young women tended to read, and discussions of books were a common pursuit. The women also began publishing The Lowell Offering.  The magazine was published from 1840 to 1845 and sold for six-and-one-fourth cents a copy. It contained poems and autobiographical sketches, which were usually published anonymously, or with the authors identified solely by their initials. The mill owners essentially controlled what appeared in the magazine, so the articles tended to be positive. Yet the magazines very existence was seen as evidence of a positive work environment.   When Charles Dickens, the great Victorian novelist, visited the United States in 1842, he was taken to Lowell to see the factory system. Dickens, who had seen the horrible conditions of British factories up close, was impressed at the conditions of the mills in Lowell. He was also impressed by The Lowell Offering. But one operator, reading of Dickens impressions, responded in The Voice of Industry newspaper, Very pretty picture, but we who work in the factory know the sober reality to be quite another thing altogether. The Lowell Offering ceased publication in 1845 when tensions between the workers and the mill owners increased. Over the last year of publication, the magazine had published material that was not entirely positive, such as an article which pointed out that loud machinery in the mills could damage a workers hearing. When the magazine promoted the cause of a workday shortened to 10 hours, tensions between workers and management became inflamed and the magazine was shut down. Immigration Ended Lowell System In the mid-1840s, the Lowell workers organized the Female Labor Reform Association, which tried to bargain for improved wages. But the Lowell System of Labor was essentially undone by increased immigration to the United States. Instead of hiring local New England girls to work in the mills, the factory owners discovered they could hire newly arrived immigrants. The immigrants, many of whom had come from Ireland, fleeing the Great Famine, were content to find any work at all, even for relatively low wages.