Children should be allowed from appearing in political ads

First, presence of children will not manipulate political views. In the

case of Ang Ladlad vs Comelec, the Court characterized democracy as built
on genuine recognition of, and respect for, diversity and difference in
opinion. The UNDHR states that everyone has the right to freedom of
opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through
any media and regardless of frontiers. To recognize these differences and
test them in the arena of public opinion is the hallmark of democracy.
Through elections, the peoples will, as manifested through their candidates
gain prominence. And in this respect, we understand the imaginary concern
of our opponents on the effects of childrens presence on the voters.
Undercutting the rigorous process of debate and reasoning and resorting to
innate psychological processes is undemocratic at best. Assuming
arguendo, the presence of children will manipulate the voter for the
intended political position. The evil sought to be suppressed is imaginary at
best. The American Psychological Association, despite its 123 years only
cited a one research with regard childrens appearance in political ads. This
paucity of corroborating research, unlike in smoking and global warming
points to the fact of lack of influence the presence of children on potential
voters. In affirming the presence of children on ads, we are strengthening
democracy. In refusing to interfere with political speech, we are ensuring
the maximum spectrum of speech in the public sphere, thus reaffirming the
recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of
all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
peace in the world, as stated in the UNDHR. Thus, the presence of children
will not manipulate political views. Children should be allowed from
appearing in political ads.
Second, children appearance is not child abuse. The UNCRC states
that the child shall be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty and
exploitation. Also, the child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given
opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to
develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and
normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. The Philippine
Constitution mandates the State to defend the right of children to
assistance and special protection against all forms of neglect, abuse,
cruelty, exploitation and other prejudicial conditions. The Philippines
adheres to these tenets through the VAWC law in protecting children from
physical, sexual and psychological violence. The evil sought to be prevented
is the objectification and sexualized children in the public sphere. None of
these evils are present in childrens appearance in political ads. Children
are not subjected to do obscene or indecent acts, nor does include
intimidation, harassment, stalking and the like. In the case at point, the
MTRCB did not censor any political ad involving children in the last 2013

elections. Thus, allowing children appearance does not degrade the values
the dignity of women and children and guarantees full respect for human
rights, as stated in Philippine law. There is no escapable conclusion other
than that childrens appearance in political advertisements in not child
abuse. Children should be allowed from appearing in political ads.
Lastly, childrens appearance in an effective lobbying tool for
childrens welfare. According to Prof Freedman, central to most notions of
representative democracy is the simple idea that citizens ought to
participate in the process of choosing leaders and expressing opinions on
matters of policy. No less that than the UNDRC proclaimed that mankind
owes to the child the best it has to give. And key to public issues are
childrens welfare. We can thus surmise that appearance of children would
inform the public about matters affecting children. According to Prof. Paul
Freedman et al in Campaign Advertising and Democratic Citizenship,
advertising can inform and mobilize the citizenry. In short, people can and
do learn from television ads, and campaign advertising can thereby fulfill a
vital democratic function. With children appearing in political material, the
people are constantly been made aware that political issue must and will
involve the welfare of their children. Case at point, Republican political
consultant Steve Grand says kids also make an issue less abstract. Children
make any controversy become real and relatable. There is much to say on
issues affecting children in this country. Issues like poverty, human
trafficking, education, insurgency and exploitation are very relevant to our
children. Thus, the presence of children constantly reminds the public about
these issues and subsequent awareness is beneficial for our children.
Hence, childrens appearance in an effective lobbying tool for childrens
welfare. Children should be allowed from appearing in political ads.

Children should not be allowed from appearing in political ads

First, the appearance of children in ads would impede mature
discussion upon mature political issues. No less than the UNDHR states that
everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive
and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers. Key to the freedom of expression is the mature discussion of
issues in the democratic sphere. Craig of St. Thomas University observed
that because modern advertising has been so much effective commercially,
it has crept into the political process. Increasingly, US legislative issues and
candidates are promoted like products through image advertising
campaigns that rely on symbolic hyperbole rather than on deliberative
debates over political alternatives. The evil sought to be prevented in this
instance is the reduction of serious political discussion to vitriol and
demagoguery. While issues must be discussed freely, we must also ensure
that elevated standards for debate and opinion are preserved. The
appearance of children in political advertisements brings this evil. Ted
Brader of the Michigan University observes that emotionally evocative ads
do not simply sway voters directly, it also changes the manner in which they
make choice. And what could be more effective than employing children? A
good case in point is the appearance of children in advertisements about
controversial political issues. In 2013, President Obama invited kids to sign
executive action for stricter gun control, which is a controversial issue in
America. What should be a debate about constitutional rights vis--vis

personal safety is complicated by appeals to emotion. The main reason for

including children according to Mark Fitzloff, an executive in advertising
firm Wieden + Kennedy is that it immediately un-fangs the opponent. Its a
smart chess move to anticipate the opponent's next move and pull the
power out of it. Furthermore, innocence can also be a useful tool, says
Pippa Seichrist, president and founder of the Miami Ad School. Anything
bad that happens is worse if it happens to a child because they're fragile
and they don't have control over anything," she says. "They're at the world's
mercy. So we have this feeling to protect them and to want to make
something better." With the quality of innocence, issues that require more
consideration are hijacked in favor of quick thinking and emotional impulse
for children. Our Constitution states that freedom of expression should not
be abridged. Not only should discussion be free but that its level should be
constantly elevated. Hence, the appearance of children in ads would impede
mature discussion upon mature political issues. Children should not be
allowed from appearing in political ads

Second, child appearance in political ads is child abuse. The UNCRC

states that a child shall be protected against all forms of neglect, cruelty
and exploitation. He shall not be the subject of traffic, in any form. In the
similar vein Philippine law through the VAWC protects children against
physical, sexual and psychological abuse. In this aspect, the State aspires
and is obliged to protect children from all forms of abuse. The evil sought to
be prevented in this case is the exploitation of children. Appearance of
children in political ads furthers this evil. This is because children are used
for furthering political agenda. A good case in point is the finding of the
APA. In a 2009 study published in the Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, Eibach found that simply reminding parents of their children
triggered harsher evaluations of people engaged in distasteful but
essentially harmless behavior, such as a dwarf who participates in dwarftossing events. Results from the 2006 General Social Survey provide
dovetailing results, with parents judging premarital sex as more morally
wrong than nonparents. Thus the effectiveness of children in political ads
can be seen. As a result, children can be made targets of political backlash.
Just two weeks ago, the Washington Post ran an ad caricaturing Ted Cruzs
children as monkeys. This quickly faced strong criticism from mainstream
media. The main reason was the appearance of Ted Cruzs children in their
fathers political ad according to Washington Post.