posted by Ms. Sue .
Bob is right. You need to expand your explanation. Consider whether cigarette advertising is misleading or false. When we had cigarette advertising on TV, the people who were smoking were cool, macho, and healthy. Are those people typical of smokers?
Was the advertising misleading?
Although a democracy is based on freedom of expression, most people recognize the need to allow the government to exercise control over such things as false and misleading advertisements or advertisements of illegal products. Is the banning of cigarette advertising on television consistent with these necessities? Explain.
This is my answer please let me know if I am correct. The banning of cigarette advertising on television IS consistent with these necessities because they could be advertising to people that cigarettes are illegal to.
You need to amplify: discuss what type of advertising is prohibited, and why. When a question says explain, you need to explain. Your answer was too terse to qualify for an explaination, in my opinion.
A number of people are opposed to the banning of cigarette advertising. It is important that you see both views. Very often your teacher is more interested in your reasoning ability or knowledge than your opinion. While your opinion is important the reasons for it and the knowledge of more than one viewpoint is what is essential.
It is quite possible that cigarette advertising is banned because it is not (1) false and misleading or (2)advertising of an illegal product.
The original statement includes the concept of "such things as" which would indicate that the above two are examples of control rather than the only reasons for government control. Other categories might include the very broad (3) not in the public interest, or (4) injurious to the public health. These other categories (3.4) very well may have more adherents to the concept that cigarette smoking should not be banned than the original two that were mentioned.