| Friday, April 14, 2006 |
| assumptions |
Today in Administrative Law, we were looking at a case for the purpose of how much bias is permissible during rulemaking proceedings. The case was about this situation in 1980 wherein there was an attempt to put regulations on children's advertising. The Commissioner of the FCC had made public statements that advertising that is directed at children is evil. The Court said that it didn't matter, and a little bias was fine, and that since he was making rules, his function was similar to that of a legislature, and no one would ever say that a legislator couldn't enter a debate on a bill with a position already staked out.
one of my classmates contributed the comment that well, of course no one in this classroom was impacted in ANY WAY by advertising toward children, I mean, of course we find it easy to just dismiss this issue and say "oh, bias, who cares," b/c it doesn't affect law students [and then some blah blah blah about how if it was about women's reproductive rights, we'd care, and so bias is bad, even if we don't care about this little issue.]
I found that odd. To just make this blanket statement as to what *everyone in the room* cared about or did not care about - what affects people, what does not.
really, i didn't see her point. perhaps she's not aware, not having children, how little of an impact this dude's bias had on the issue. as in - zip, zero zilch. Advertising targeted at children is thriving, and i'm sure that what the man perceived as "evil" has done nothing but increase. |
posted by Zuska @ 4:55 PM   |
|
|
|
