zlacker

[return to "Let's Ban Billboards"]
1. delich+21[view] [source] 2025-04-07 01:07:21
>>iambat+(OP)
How about if we don't make lots of wide authoritarian bans to make people behave according our will instead of their own. How about if we rule the world from the bottom up instead of the top down? What if we just mostly, you know, live and let live? Going with free speech, including billboards, is a good place to start trying out such a wild plan.
◧◩
2. wormiu+b2[view] [source] 2025-04-07 01:17:35
>>delich+21
Taking the Supreme Court argument that Property = Speech I see. More money = More volume. There is no equality of "free" speech. Or rather, the speech if free, but the rich get to amplify their voice over the poor. You can say what you want if you're poor, but only if you're rich can you demand people listen to you without recompense or the right to block, and if you DO want to block you're "bad" and "anti-speech". (See Elon's how dare anyone have the right to block).

Driving is a captive audience, I don't have the option to "close my eyes/plug my ears" to avoid your "free speech" but with free speech comes the right to avoid hearing your bullshit. I can avoid buying a book, I can turn the channel on the radio, but a billboard doesn't offer that "right" to be free FROM your bullshit speech. There's more obligation on billboards in that regards, and it's kinda horseshit that you're allowed to hold me captive because you have enough money to spend on a campaign (whether it's commercial, political, religious IDGAF)

Wish "freespeechers" could understand this. I'm not saying we should just ban everything, and I'm not even sure I agree with a billboard ban (I would have signed up 25 years ago on that, adbusters reading chud that I was). I'm just saying it's really pathetic that people cry "free speech" when there are two things at play and the SCOTUS did a disservice on differentation between amplitude of property vs signal of speech.

◧◩◪
3. charci+O5[view] [source] 2025-04-07 01:52:22
>>wormiu+b2
People without money to spend can use debt to amplify their message.
◧◩◪◨
4. __Matr+R8[view] [source] 2025-04-07 02:16:23
>>charci+O5
Why should we tolerate amplified messages at all? If you've got something worth hearing to say, people will repeat it. We've been doing that for a million years or so, we're good at it.

I mean, let's make exceptions for events where everybody came to hear the thing, where consent for the amplification can be assumed because we all bought tickets or something, but if you're standing on the corner with a bullhorn shouting at passers-by, that's hostile behavior in the same way that billboards are. Please don't do it.

[go to top]