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
That's what I said, with additional context and links.

However, commercial speech is not fully protected by the First Amendment.

E.g., In TV beer ads, no one is actually allowed to drink beer. And there are many more restrictions on commercial speech as well.

N.B., this is in the US. I can't speak for anywhere else.

>>nobody+Oe
There is so far as I can tell no law or regulation against showing people drinking beer in a beer commercial.

>>tptace+rn
Show me a single US beer commercial that aired on TV which actually shows folks drinking beer.

No rush. I'll wait. But I won't hold my breath.

>>nobody+iY
Show me a single law, regulation, or court case indicating that a beer ad can't depict the consumption of beer. I don't believe you can.

>>tptace+re1
You're both half right.

There's no law, regulation, or court case because the industry self-regulates in fear of a new law being made.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/aug/20/heineken/n...

> "The fact that it is self-regulated now, that’s not something brewers would want to put in jeopardy," Kirkpatrick said. "It’s the way they have operated for decades. You show a lot of people enjoying a football game or enjoying a baseball game but you don’t show any consumption. I don't think you’re going to see that change."

> A Heineken beer commercial said regulations ban showing someone drinking beer on camera. If you take a more relaxed view of regulations, that’s close to the truth. The rules come from the television networks, not the government. The restriction might not have the force of law but it’s just as effective. We rate the claim Mostly True.

zlacker