zlacker

>>smnrg+(OP)
Ok...

First, it is 100% free speech.

Second, the government isn't allowed to make laws prohibiting the exercise of free speech based on the content of said speech. Nor can it take actions which are arbitrary or capricious.

Third, restrictions on free speech MUST fulfill some overriding public good like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or words meant to incite violence. Slander, libel, &etc.

Fourth, why is it even necessary to explain this?

>>UncleE+53
I'm not convinced modern advertising qualifies as free speech. It's often manipulative, used by bad faith actors, used for tracking, slows websites down, is obtrusive, disrupts concentration, etc.

>>goatlo+35
None of those things exempt something from speech protection in the US, as far as I'm aware. Different countries have different laws, but here you are legally allowed to say just about anything (including way worse stuff than any of the things you mentioned).