zlacker

[return to "What if we made advertising illegal?"]
1. bofade+j2[view] [source] 2025-04-05 18:17:11
>>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.

◧◩
2. kcatsk+c4[view] [source] 2025-04-05 18:28:20
>>bofade+j2
Of course it's open for discussion. Free speech is not limitless.

You can wax poetically all you want about endowment by the creator, but try saying racial slurs on daytime TV and see how long that lasts.

Advertisement is just another form of speech that can be limited.

◧◩◪
3. bofade+W4[view] [source] 2025-04-05 18:32:45
>>kcatsk+c4
"Congress shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What part of that are you confused by? You are making a brash claim that the writ of the state includes the ability to censor speech.

Your right to free speech is not granted by anyone. It's your natural right. It's not possible to separate this right from a human with a law.

◧◩◪◨
4. dahart+ZI1[view] [source] 2025-04-06 15:02:25
>>bofade+W4
Free speech has exceptions that include commercial speech and advertising, especially false advertising. So are you talking about US free speech laws, or about some other kind of free speech?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

US law is not a natural right and does not grant the right to say anything. You can claim and exercise a perceived natural right to say anything, you just won’t be protected from punishment under US law for saying certain things.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. bofade+tv2[view] [source] 2025-04-06 20:57:43
>>dahart+ZI1
A law cannot remove a natural right. A law can protect a natural right or oppress people by using violence against them if they exercise their natural right.

One stark example is the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 in the United States. This law required that escaped slaves, even if they reached free states, be captured and returned to their owners. It went further by mandating that citizens and law enforcement in free states assist in this process, effectively making it illegal to help runaway slaves. Penalties for non-compliance were harsh—fines and imprisonment loomed over anyone who aided a fugitive.

By today’s standards, this is widely seen as abhorrent because it not only upheld slavery but forced people to actively participate in it, stripping away any moral or legal refuge for those seeking freedom. It’s a glaring relic of a time when human beings were legally treated as property, clashing hard with modern values of liberty and equality.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. dahart+jT2[view] [source] 2025-04-07 00:58:07
>>bofade+tv2
That’s great, but not what I asked about. Free speech protections in the US are based on laws and not natural rights.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. bofade+a23[view] [source] 2025-04-07 02:18:46
>>dahart+jT2
Well that's not how it reads in historical documents to me. But you're free to have that opinion if you want to.
[go to top]