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
The ambiguity of these questions is a feature rather than a bug.

Being unable to tell when something is "advertising" forces everyone to think twice before hawking their wares, which is exactly what we want if we intend to kill ads. The chilling effect is precisely the intention.

It’s the engineer’s curse to believe that airtight laws are automatically better, or that justice springs from mechanistic certainty. The world is fundamentally messy, and the sooner we accept its arbitrariness, the sooner we can get to an advertising-free world.

>>kelsey+M5
No. This is called selective enforcement and is the worst thing in the world. It gives the enforcers the option to pick on whoever they want and give a pass to whever they want, as if there were no law at all. There is effectively no law at all, because literally anyone doing anything can be called either guilty or innocent at the whim of the person doing the enforcing, or whoever controls them.

>>Brian_+4b
No, what it does is require the courts to interpret the meaning of the word and create precedent. That’s not the same as selective enforcement.