Supreme Court Rules in Favor of False Advertising

0 Comments | Share:
The United States Supreme Court ruled that limiting Burger King's advertisements to the truth is a violation of the First Amendment.
The United States Supreme Court ruled that limiting Burger King's advertisements to the truth is a violation of the First Amendment.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a controversial ruling, the United States Supreme Court eased legislation to allow companies more freedom when advertising products and services including allowing for statements that are not proven true.

Ruling on the case of Burger King vs. USA, the justices found that Burger Kings’ claim of “Our burgers won’t give you AIDS, but McDonald’s will” is protected under the First Amendment and therefore legal.

McDonald’s sued Burger King after an ad, which featured a healthy, happy person eating a Burger King hamburger and a disease ridden, homeless person eating a McDonald’s hamburger. The word “AIDS” flashed in bright red and green letters whenever McDonald’s was mentioned or shown in the commercial. McDonald’s argued that the commercial was slander and socially irresponsible.

“Our hamburgers will not give you AIDS if you eat one. There is no proof of that. Sure there was that one guy but we later found out he got AIDS from a monkey and not the hamburger,” said McDonald’s spokesman Denny Kaiser. “We are disappointed that the Supreme Court sided with Burger King here. I mean, seriously‚Ķ who eats Burger King’s shit anyways? One of their hamburgers has enough fat and calories to kill a three-year-old.”

Kaiser continued to say that now that the court has ruled, McDonald’s will respond appropriately.

“What’s done is done,” said Kaiser. “We are going to fight fire with fire. In fact, I’ll start right now. You shouldn’t eat Burger King because if you do, a big guy named Spider will rape you in the butt and then cut your toes off and make hamburgers out of them. At McDonald’s, that won’t happen. Some come on down and let your asshole stay safe.”

The decision was split 5-4 with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing the dissent.

“The freedom of speech is elemental to a free society and by restricting the voice of companies, we restrict freedom,” stated Roberts in his majority ruling. “By not allowing Burger King to say that their burgers will not give you AIDS but McDonald’s will, we are limiting companies to the truth and that is something this country has stood against for centuries.”

The ruling has already opened up a flood gates of commercials featuring false statements.

“We are already seeing commercials trying to take advantage of (the ruling),” said Bernstein and Fredrick Advertising Manager Terry LeMonde. “Nike wants to do a spot where they imply that anyone who wears Reeboks is a child molester. But that’s not even close to the worst. Target is doing a series of adds where they show Wal-Mart executives praying to Satan and eating babies. That is just totally wrong. Seriously, everyone knows that Wal-Mart is sucking up to Birberzus, the leader of the 7th level of Hell. Saying that they’re going straight to the top of the Hell food chain is just not right.”

In addition to commercials for products and services, this ruling is expected to play a major role in advertising for the upcoming Presidential election in 2008.

“Already Presidential Candidates are releasing commercials accusing the others of everything from murder and rape to flying one of the planes that struck the World Trade Center Towers,” said University of Massachusetts Marketing and Political Science professor Garry Weisternem. “I imagine it will only get worse from here ad there are no repercussions for anything these dicks say.”


Note: You must preview your comment first and then submit your comment. This is to trick the spambots.
Textile help

Back to Top