zlacker

>>smnrg+(OP)
This begs the question: how could you reliably distinguish advertising from other forms of free speech?

The courts already distinguish "commercial speech" as a class of speech. Would we prevent all forms of commercial speech? What about a waiter asking you "would you like to try a rosé with that dish? It pairs very well together." Is that "advertising" that would need to be outlawed?

What about giving out free samples? Is that advertising, and thus should be illegal?

What about putting a sign up on your business that says the business name? Is that advertising?

I hate advertising and propaganda. But the hard part IMO is drawing the line. Where's the line?

>>toomim+12
It raises the question, it does not beg it. Begging the question is e.g saying 'If advertisement was bad for you it would be forbidden. Since it's not forbidden it's not bad for us. Therefor we should not forbid it.'

>>Epa095+ia
I've heard so many respectable intellectuals use "beg the question" instead of "raise the question" that correcting the usage has surpassed pedantry and gone into ignorance of "definition b".

It's like correcting someone on the pronunciation of French-English forte. It just gets you uninvited next time.