zlacker

>>smnrg+(OP)
This is free speech. It's not open for discussion.

Our right to free speech is not granted by anyone's consent or by government decree. It preexists the state and cannot be taken away.

We hold this truth to be self-evident. We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.

If any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.

>>bofade+j2
Someone else made the point that ads cost money, so this isn't about free speech. I guess making advertising free would be the same as banning it since it exists to be sold.

>>gibbit+E4
Any voluntary transaction between two conscious, consenting adults is axiomatically ethical and moral.

>>bofade+H6
Following your axiom would imply advertisers would need to gain my consent in order to advertise to me. That would be a decent start.

>>nehal3+Iy1
No that's not a transaction. We're talking about contracts. Derp.

>>bofade+Wt2
If you follow Merriam Webster for 'transaction' it absolutely is: "a communicative action or activity involving two parties or things that reciprocally affect or influence each other"

>>nehal3+XG2
Alright, noted. I'm not writing a law to be interpreted - it's a comment.