Let's Ban Billboards

>>iambat+(OP)
Advertising is a parasitic force on society. It sucks up your attention with a willful intention to change your purchasing behaviour, often knowing that the new behavior is worse for you.

If ads were merely about being informative, they would be boring. But ads want to manipulate, so they have to be flashy and appeal to your emotions.

They pollute your mental headspace, and have no place in a healthy society.

Let's ban billboards. And then let's follow that up with a general purpose ban on paid advertisement.

>>Taek+F1
Well, in between step 1 ("ban billboards") and step 3 ("ban advertisement") you'd need step 2 ("repeal the First Amendment of the United States Constitution").

>>tptace+Z1
>Well, in between step 1 ("ban billboards") and step 3 ("ban advertisement") you'd need step 2 ("repeal the First Amendment of the United States Constitution"). Let me know how that goes!

For most of US history, Commercial speech was not afforded full free speech rights. Nor does it currently enjoy them, although it is more protected than it used to be[0]:

   Commercial speech, as the Supreme Court iterated in Valentine v. Chrestensen 
   (1942)[1], had historically not been viewed as protected under the First 
   Amendment. This category of expression, which includes commercial 
   advertising, promises, and solicitations, had been subject to significant 
   regulation to protect consumers and prevent fraud. Beginning in the 1970s, 
   however, the Supreme Court gradually recognized this type of speech as 
   deserving some First Amendment protection.

As such, it wouldn't require repealing anything. Just reinterpreting how the First Amendment applies (or not) to commercial speech. And given the wholesale tossing out of precedent by recent SCOTUS personnel, it's certainly possible (albeit unlikely -- and more's the pity -- in this configuration) for them to do so.

[0] https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/commercial-speech/

[1] https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/valentine-v-chresten...

>>nobody+k3
I don't know what you mean by "full" free speech rights. But for the last 50 years, under the Burger, Rehnquist, and Roberts courts, pure commercial speech has been held to be protected by the First Amendment. The Burger court overturned Valentine.

>>tptace+C5
Right, but there is past (obsolete) precedent that suggests otherwise. If Valentine can be overturned, then the current way of thinking can also be changed.

>>kelnos+ka
The opinion overturning Valentine noted that 30 years of jurisprudence since Valentine had arrived at a consensus that Valentine sure was pretty dumb. Not just Burger's court.

>>tptace+Pb
>The opinion overturning Valentine noted that 30 years of jurisprudence since Valentine had arrived at a consensus that Valentine sure was pretty dumb. Not just Burger's court.

And the opinions on Gruen v. New York, Dobbs v. Jackson, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and especially on point, Citizen's United all broke with long precedent and turned things upside down. No amendments to repeal/change, just a different set of folks on SCOTUS.

And those were pretty dumb. So perhaps we'll have some improvement eventually, although I probably won't live to see it. And more's the pity.

Edit: Added conclusion.

zlacker