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
There’s a strong tendency to have a bias towards the status quo because we’re afraid of things being worse. And that bias can make us afraid of even trying to change things for the better.

All of the problems you listed can be prevented from becoming endemic by having clear definitions in the law and generally reasonable judges. But if our judges are generally unreasonable, we are screwed either way. So what’s the downside to setting up a clear law against advertising?