eople find them offensive or unlikeable.1 The First Amendment does not state that everyone must be satisfied in order to have this freedom of expression. The First Amendments purpose, as Sack points out, is to give everyone the right to an opinion! no matter what others think. If an advertisement does not maliciously attack a race or group in society, then that advertisement is simply practicing its First Amendment right. Therefore, one cannot assume that advertisements promote racism.While advertising is a practice of the First Amendment, government has set various rules that limit both what and how one can advertise; as a result, malicious acts of racism and racial disunity cease to exist. Government agencies have developed copyrights and patents to ensure the protection of peoples rights and ideals. If one does not wish to have the name of something or someone very dear to him exploited, than that individual has the right to have their product or name copyrighted or patented. A copyright is the right to exclusive publication or sale of a work. A patent is a grant made by the government to give the inventors of a product the sole right to make, use, and sell their invention. Some states have also developed rules stating that one cannot exploit the dead. Georgia Supreme Court, for example, has ruled that one cannot exploit the name Martin Luther King, Jr. on a product. Tennessee has ruled that one cannot draw cash on the name Elvis Presley.2 These ar!e just a few of the rules set out by government agencies that advertising agencies must follow. These governmental agencies go on to set various strict rules to ensure that products and advertisements do not promote racism or racial disunity as well. Agencies ban racist words such as those associated with blacks and Chinese; hence, racial tensions through advertisements become extinct. By agencies keeping a close watch over advertisement, while not interfering with ones First Amendm...
