Your kids your responsiblity. Sometimes you have to tell them NO. I grew up with my parents regulating and most importantly teaching me good habits no matter how much I screamed or whined. I thank them for that... and for those who want to say well things are different now... well yes they are. Now I'm the parent and I'm doing the same for my children no matter how much they scream or whine, and yet they still say "I love you" to me every day. Personal responsiblility. Thats the key. And as long as your kids are your responsibility Then you should help them exercise and learn it's values

This is absurd. We need to do what we did with the firearms industry (and should have done with the tobacco companies): pass legislation giving these companies immunity from these frivolous suits.

This blame game has got to stop. When will people ever take responsibility for their own selves and their own children?

I'm suing this group for wasting my time. I read this article and now I"m mad. Can anyone recommend a good lawyer?

Were pass socialism, we are in communism.

This is another example of our whiny fellow Americans not wanting to take responsibility over their own lives. First, it's the smokers. Then, it's the fire arms industry. Next is the fast food industry. Now, it's Kellogs and Nickelodeon.
It's up to every individual to say "no" to smoking, killing, and eating fast food if they don't want to suffer the ill effects. It's up the parents of these kids to say "no" to their children if they ask for sweet cereal. If a parent doesn't understand that sweet cereal isn't as healthy as Total or some other bran cereal, then they are morons! Maybe they shouldn't be parents!
Stop the insanity!

Because we all know that television sets physically get up, tie the parents up in the basement and force these children to watch and obey...

Me head hurts.

I wish I could say, there was bright side to this. However, even if this lawsuit gets shot down there is going to be another to take it's place. I do think this does raise an important question. Let's imagine the lawsuit passes. Would that mean that parents are no longer responsible for thier childrens habits. Hey! If big brother doesn't work, maybe a big daddy government will?

My sister and I used to watch Nickelodeon all the time when we were kids and not once did my parents ever feel obligated to constantly feed us the junk food they advertised. Did we consume Burger King, Coke and Frosted Flakes? Yes, but only once in a while. Why? Because my parents valued common sense, which lobbyists seem determined to bury for laziness.

No, lets not give everyone civil immunity. People need to be held accountable for thier actions, and civil immunity almost always results in the law being applied far beyond its orginal scope and the result is justice denied.

The fact that people here draw a parellel between the firearms and tobbaco industries proves how clueless they really are. There is no comparison to be made. Gunmarkers make no secrets about the dangers of thier products or thier purpose.

The tobbaco industry, on the other hand, has time and time again hid the dangers of thier products. In fact, they used to tell you that smoking was good for you. They used to have a bunch of doctors on the payroll who wrote positive things about tobacco use. The list goes on and on. Now, the tobacco companies are more or less honest about thier products and the people who use them today are entitled to nothing. But the people before, mostly the older generation, are entitled to recover as they were misled.

Personal responsibility applies at all levels, including corporate. When you lie to consumers and intentionally engage in a pattern of conduct that you know will hurt them and you do it anyway, well, you're responsible for whatever happens to them.

The fast food industy is in the same boat as the tobacco industry as are makers of Teflon. They did not, until very recenetly, inform thier customers about dangers of thier products. This is after people have been using the products for years.

Both deserve to pay for any sins they have committed, if any, as determined by a jury and a court.

Why not make exercise mandatory? It is the next logical step. On every day you must do 30 min. of cardiovascular exercise and your time will be monitored by a fat bureaucrat. It is for your own good. Think of the children!

We can't be free with people doing what they want.

"The fast food industy is in the same boat as the tobacco industry as are makers of Teflon. They did not, until very recenetly, inform thier customers about dangers of thier products. This is after people have been using the products for years."

Man, I thought I could think for myself.

I have a good idea. Lets have a society with food that taste like S^%!, you have a mandated 24 hour schedule, bureaucrats have total control in the name of the people, and we have no commercials. Sound like maybe communism or fascism. All depends on how you wish to centrally plan your society.

This has got to stop! There are sooo many people that like to have their lives planned out and lived for them. I'm not one of them. I won't ever again live in a community that has a Homeowners Ass-sociation, I will never again allow my kids to go to a public school that tries to tell me how I should spend MY money on MY kids' clothes (because kids can only learn if they are all wearing the same generic clothes: BS!!), I will not hurry out an buy the 'latest and greatest' whatever it is they advertise on TV, and I will NOT allow my kids to tell me what I'm going to feed them! I tell my kids 'no' a hundred times or more each day. It's my job, it's my right, and I'm the boss, so what I say goes. These 'parents', Sherri Carlson and Andrew Leong, are two lazy parents who are trying to gather up all the other lazy parents to join them in a frivolous lawsuit for the 'betterment of the children'. BS!! I've got 4 kids. Yeah, they try the 'whine and holler method to get stuff from me. I'm the parent, so it's my job to say 'no', and boy, have I perfected that! I'm the Queen of NO. If anyone has a picture of this stupid idiot Sherri, please post it. I can only bet that she is an overweight cow herself, and that her kids are spoiled little brats. I'm going to be emailing Kellogg's and Nick next to tell them I support them 100% and not to be afraid of the idiots that can't deal with their kids wanting things. STUPID!!

Another look at the absurdity of government. I want to note that I do agree with Keith, though, that corporations do need to take personal responsibility for their actions. I do not agree with him that this applies to fast food/junk food, though.

It's pretty clear to just about anyone that fast food/junk food isn't exactly healthy. It's common knowledge. When I eat at McDonalds, for example, I know quite well the risk I'm putting myself in. It is my choice, and if I get fat from eating there, that's my responsibility.

Keith cites the tobacco industry stating, "Now, the tobacco companies are more or less honest about thier products and the people who use them today are entitled to nothing. But the people before, mostly the older generation, are entitled to recover as they were misled."

I must agree with this. But, this sort of thing is an exception to the rule. Businesses generally want to be very truthful with their customers, because they fear they may lose business if their reputation as truthful advertisers is hurt. By keeping advertisements truthful, the threat to their reputation is deminished.

Kelloggs doesn't hide the healthiness or lack theirof of their products. Just look on the side of the box and you'll see exactly how much sugar, fat, etc. there is in the product.

Many here have commented regarding the importance of personal respobsibility. This can't be stressed enough.

Like Forrest, I watched Nickelodeon growing up. Arguably, I watched it too much. But were my grandparents compelled to buy everything I wanted? No.

One last comment, a reply to Jason P., I'm a bit leary of giving the government the power to limit law suits, especially at the federal level. It sounds good in theory, but how can we be sure they'll limit the limit just to frivolous law suits? I don't really trust that government can solve this problem. On the other hand, there is a problem, and it should be addressed somehow.

Sincerely,

Alex Peak
President, College Libertarians of Towson
Towson University, Maryland
wwwnew.towson.edu/clt

Just more "Nanny State" laws to fatten the pockets of the trial lawyers with moronic lawsuits.

One of the ideas floated around during the creation of the Constitution was not allowing lawyers to serve in public office because of the obvious abuses that could come out of it. They obviously rejected the idea, sure wish they didn't now.

Laws are made by lawyers FOR lawyers. The ONLY area of agreement between myself and the Neocon’s is the reform (read elimination) of frivolous lawsuits and SERIOUS Tort reform. Then listen to the trial lawyers weep crocodile tears over "loss of justice" for the masses, when in reality they are worried about loss of income for themselves. Going to a "loser pays" system would be the first right step.

Joyce,

Loved the comment about generic cothes.

QUOTE: "I'm going to be emailing Kellogg's and Nick next to tell them I support them 100% and not to be afraid of the idiots that can't deal with their kids wanting things."

If you find their emails, please post them here. I' love to also send them emails of encouragement. :)

Sincerely,

Alex Peak
President, College Libertarians of Towson
Towson University, Maryland
wwwnew.towson.edu/clt

In response to Keith, I agree that companies have to take responsibility for the effects of their products. The tobacco industry for many years did not. The food industry, however, provides nutritional facts. Even if you walk into McDonalds, you can request them.
People are responsible for educating themselves about their health. Once they do, they are provided with nutritional facts to help them make healthy decisions. Now, I DO wish there wasn't such an abundance of fallacious health information out there, but that has nothing ot do with Kellogs.

Keith: how were the older generation fooled? My father and relatives, who fought WWII, grew up in the twenties and thirties calling cigarettes
"coffin nails." I don't think they harbored any illusions as to the possible consequences of smoking.

Companies are using children's cartoons to market children's cereal to CHILDREN?! Egad! What's next? Buxom women in "Hooters" commercials? Athletes in sneaker ads? Stop the insanity!

Personal responsibility has taken a huge dive down the side of a cliff. Supposedly, humans are different because of animals because of a conscience and the ability to counter instinctive behavior and make choices. There is no political attack that needs to be made. This is a social battle. Censorship is our own right to change channel, turn off, or leave a private area. As long as our public or personal space is not being brainwashed, we are not being controlled. Nickelodean is cable tv for god sakes. This mom wants Nickelodean and makes that choice everytime she pays the bills. With that choice comes many other choices. She will get commmercials from these companies because that is a part of Nickelodean. If you want another choice make one but don't try to tell me there are no choices. Parents are really losing a grip on themselves. Maybe, the state should decide what is the best for their kids, and in that case, I'll be taken myself and forming a new government on a little island somewhere. . .

I am still looking for an island, we should have a libertarian state, island, I think this government is to far gone that anything could be changed at this point.

I question whether this has anything to do with libertarian concerns, which I understand to principally be focused on the size and reach of government. If you believe in liberty of the individual, then you should also believe that everyone has the right to file whatever stupid lawsuit they want. I don't want government rules prohibiting these things from being filed in the first instance. Instead, while I don't know the rules of the court in which it was filed, most courts have rules sanctioning attorneys and their clients for frivolous lawsuits, and while they are not often used (because using them too much would chill access to the courts) they are imposed from time to time. The monetary sanctions can be severe, including paying all of the other side's attorneys fees and costs. You can rest assured that the defendants in this case will be beating the plaintiffs attorneys over their heads with that type of claim.

As far as I can tell, the government has nothing to do with this, other than providing a forum (the courts) to allow people to air their grievances (or supposed grievances). Remember, when Brown v. Board of Education was filed, people also claimed it frivolous.

I am entirely comfortable with an independent judiciary resolving these claims before they even get to trial, and if a trial is necessary, having a jury of common people just like you and me make a decision. If you think that a jury of your peers can't sort this out, and want to take the decision from them, then you are advocating a political process that is very different than what I understand libertarians desire.

My strong bet is that this case will eventually be dismissed, with no money being paid, and is being done just to generate publicity (as it obviously has).

So Kellogg and Nickelodeon are being sued because they advertise "junk food." Ridiculous!

It is frivolous law suits such as this, that have turned many into victims thus shunning personal responsibilty.

Again folks, its the damned Trial Lawyers and their never ending search for $$$ and their worthless clients who want something for nothing. Corporations have DEEP POCKETS, they will all be in the docket sooner or later. This can be stopped at the local level with tort reform.

unfortantly frivolous law suits are inevitable.The answer is tort it self not tort reform and that is what this is about.The judge in this case must deserne whether damages have accured and can a remedy be made or damges recovered.Was the plaintiff wronged somhow and can the plaintiff be made whole.I believe the answer is no.therefore should be thrown out of court and not heard.This is job of our judges and is government working as it's desighned there is no reason for a new buaracracy to take on the funtion finding lawsuits frivolous or not.The answer is here this is the constitutional remedy.there shouldnt have to much finding fact to figure out this is a lost case.

If you want to email Kellogg's, go to their homepage at: http://www.kelloggs.com
At the top of this page above 'recipes' click on 'contact us'. Go to the box at the bottom left where it says 'Still have a question? Contact us!" Put in your age range and hit the 'continue' tab and you will get to the page where you can let them know of your support.
With Nick, here is the address to go to email them: http://www.nick.com/blab/write_nick/mail.jhtml
You can cut and paste that into your address bar to get there. Anyone have the idiots' email address' that started this lawsuit? I've got a thing or two to say to them as well! ;o)

Here is what should happen if this is not thrown out immediately:

Judge declares a "summary judgement" within a few days of first hearing:

Judge finds in plantiffs favor and awards plantiff one TIVO for each parent to edit out commercials. Judge also awards each parent a Remote Control so that their childrens TV's may be turned off for a time period each day. Judge also awards plantiffs 1 set "ear protection muffs" good to 120dB to block verbal tantrums from plaintiffs children. All awards ordered to be procurred by plantiffs themselves. Judge also awards defendant with attorneys fees and court costs to be paid by planitiff(s).

Sure their kids still get the behavioural-conditioning propaganda from original NICK shows, but at least they are skinny!

On a side note, if anyone here tells me that smokers did not know smoking was a serious health hazzard at the very same time (and far, far earlier) the major tobacco companies were saying it wasn't (60's right?), then I must ask them if they believed Bush regarding WMD's (among other things)being a good reason to invade Iraq. Anyone who smoked or knew someone who did (so everyone at that time)KNEW that there were serious health risks associated with smoking, they just didn't know exactly what they were.

Anyone who had followed any non-mainstream news knew there were no WMDS 6 months or more before we invaded in 3/03 - but our President and other high level figures claimed adamantly that there most certainly were. Just because an individual or body of individuals claims something doesn't mean it's true. Any ADULT that is not an idiot should have learned that lesson in life a long time ago!

If you don't know if a product is harmful or not, and won't do the research personally to come up with YOUR OWN answer, then you should not use the product. If you use the product anyway based on what someone else claims, you must know up-front that their claims could be incorrect or fallacies, and therefore, have damaging consequences. It is that simple: Do your own research, make your own determination, and blame no one but yourself for mistakes and, more importantly, their consequences.

Blaming others leads to resentment, resentment leads to jealousy, jealousy leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering...At least Yoda says it does...

Wouldn't it be nice to live in a Free Republic where reason governs both the mentality of the people and the actions of government...and Liberty is an actual practice instead of just a worn out slogan Ah, the dreams of a Secessionist!