The McKenna Supreme Court judgement of 1995 means that, for constitutional amendments, the Government must provide equal funding to the “for” and “against” sides of the debate, regardless of what might be the apparent levels of support from either the political establishment or the general public.
It strikes me that it wouldn’t take much effort to have the courts establish that a similar even-handedness must apply to all public service promotions or advertising. This would open the door to some novel messages in our multi-media world.
You can just imagine what the pro-smoking campaign would look like. Think of the fun you’d have promoting the pleasures of getting plastered and then driving home. The boy-racers would have a ball demonstrating advanced speeding techniques, while the unhealthy eating, pro-obesity campaign could well provide a cameo role for yours truly. The unsafe sex promotion doesn’t bear thinking about. Etc etc etc
The list is almost endless - it would surely spell the end of the nanny state.
- ► 2010 (44)
- ► 2009 (78)
- ► 2008 (100)
- ► 2007 (215)
- Boot Camp for Young Offenders?
- Al-Qaeda & Papal visit to Turkey
- Multi-tasking woman
- Christmas Crib - continued
- Supersize Me!
- Last week's N11 cock-up
- Wasting public money on the Dail
- My Christmas Crib
- Worst ever traffic chaos on M11/M50
- Low Tax Regime
- Al Pacino can act - sometimes
- Yusuf Islam/Cat Stevens
- Philip McContempomi
- Onward Christian Soldiers
- McGurk v. Previn
- My dog's breath smells!
- Sisters guilty in headless murder case
- Cherishing all of the companies of the nation equa...
- Bertie, a part-time republican?
- That Iraq Joke
- ▼ November (20)