zlacker

>>smnrg+(OP)
Almost every single time speech is limited someone finds a way to weaponize that limitation.

In most jurisdictions there are, at times weaponized, limitations, and that's the tradeoff those jurisdiction landed on.

I don't see how this proposed limitation could produce acceptable weaponizations.

Just think for a second how outlandish these would sound with such limitation in place:

- The ban on "persuasive content" is used to shut down political dissent labeled as "unwanted influence."

- Independent journalists are silenced when their reporting is categorized as "promotional advertising."

- Fundraising for humanitarian causes is outlawed as "solicitation advertising."

- Religious discussions are prohibited as "advertising spiritual beliefs" or "donation to the organized religion."

- Medical awareness campaigns are shut down as "advertising health concerns."

- Environmental activism is criminalized as "advertising eco-agendas."

There would be just no end of these.

>>ndr+lh
However fully unregulated speech also leads to issues like insults or forms of propaganda which encourages violence. History is full of cases where violent speech was enabler of physical violence. From school bullies to violence of the German Third Reich where speech was an enabler.

Thus as always in society finding the right approach and right way of regulating isn't easy.