You may have heard about a few recent cases in which men were arrested for plotting to blow up buildings or subways on behalf of al Queda. Well, an attorney I know was recently appointed to be the public defender of one of these men. While I’m a believer in our public justice system, it made me wonder, “does this suspect really deserve a vigorous defense as prescribed by law?” And somehow that thought lead me to think of our industry.

We’re a bit like defense attorneys. Our clients pursuits are not always the most noble, but we actively engage the depths of our creativity to provide the most vigorous defense we can for their cases.

We artfully promote credit cards that lead people into debt. We help fill up airplanes that pollute our environment. I don’t think we’re defending mass murderers by any means but I’d hasten to guess that a good number of my past clients have been party to acts with more negative ramifications to our world than, say, selling a dime bag in the park.

A couple of years back a colleague told me that he can’t stand it when ad people ask questions like this. He found it sanctimonious. For my part, I’m actually relieved when I find out someone is a little conflicted about promoting the ignoble pursuit of profit with no sense of conscience. I applaud those who avoid working for agencies that promote smoking or stick by some other cause.

I don’t begrudge the success of those who represent these sorts of businesses. I think that, like lawyers, we’re bound by a certain code to provide the most vigorous defense we can for our clients. But I also think we’re bound by a greater obligation beyond advertising to consider where to draw the line. And I hold in high regard those ad professionals who do so at risk of profit, reputation and career.

- Glen Day