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.
At some point the public interest overrides an absolute freedom of speech. We can debate where that line is, but "it's not open for discussion" is objectively incorrect.
You have an extremist point of view that your right to free speech is granted to you by the government.
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.
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.
This is inherently a subjective matter. It's not possible to be objectively incorrect on whether or not speech protection should be absolute.
You're conflating two senses of "free speech". Free speech is an ideal, which our society does not fully reach (as you correctly pointed out). But in the US, "free speech" is also sometimes used to refer to the legal protection from the first amendment. And in your example, that does apply. I can say all the racial slurs I want on TV, and it would be quite illegal to put me in jail for it.
"Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights). Natural law is the law of natural rights.
Legal rights are those bestowed onto a person by a given legal system (they can be modified, repealed, and restrained by human laws). The concept of positive law is related to the concept of legal rights."
This is not true.
Under 18 U.S.C. Section 1464, “[w]hoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.” Under 18 U.S.C. Section 1468(a), “[w]hoever knowingly utters any obscene language or distributes any obscene matter by means of cable television or subscription services on television, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or by a fine in accordance with this title, or both.” Likewise, under 47 U.S.C. Section 559, “[w]hoever transmits over any cable system any matter which is obscene or otherwise unprotected by the Constitution of the United States shall be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.”
Again, try screaming racial slurs on daytime television. You will be met with a fine and/or imprisonment.
I am not a lawyer. I am not a member of congress. I did not write the law. I don't particularly like or agree with those laws. But they exist, and unless I'm mistaken it seems like you're unwilling to acknowledge their existence.
It is not acceptable for a stranger to come up and start shouting at you while you're trying to read, or hold a conversation, do your shopping, or put gas in your car. So why is it somehow acceptable for advertisers to do so? Would you want to pay for a course of instruction, some unknown percentage of which was not instruction, but was actually conducted at the direction of unknown others, who, with no regard or concern for your life, liberty, well-being or happiness were trying to extract wealth from you? Yet that is exactly what happens with much of our media-mediated experience of the world.
I think the underlying changes in the technology of communication have allowed advertising to grow without sufficient thought on whether such expansion was actually a public good. Like license plates - the impact of which changed radically when the government could, thanks to advances in technology, use them to monitor the position of virtually all vehicles over time, instead of being forced to physically look up who owned what vehicle - the explosion of media over the last century has been accompanied by an immense shift in the impact and capability and intrusiveness of advertising. And it's legality needs to be reassessed in that light.
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.
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.
I get the impression that this "natural right" term is intended to preclude inquiry and shut down discussion.
It seems that the only effect this "natural right" term has on sufficiently curious interlocutors (who will not fall for your rhetorical trick) is to signal that you are more stubborn than people who do not use the term.
Any involuntary contract imposed on any individual is axiomatically immoral and unethical, as I've said below. There's no need to use such extreme examples.
I’m talking about the First Amendment, which does mention free speech. That’s a law and not a natural right, which you already know since you quoted it above. Additional laws and court decisions have defined what the free speech protections are, and what types of speech are not protected by law.
The important thing to know about free speech in the US is that because it’s a legal right, it comes with legal protections from the government itself.
The important thing to know about natural rights is that they don’t come with any protection whatsoever, because they are not laws or legal rights. Asserting natural rights may come with consequences that include violence, imprisonment, or death. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence was asserting the natural right to start a war against oppressive government, specifically to justify breaking with British colonial rule. If there are no legal rights protecting you, the government is under no obligation to respect your perceived natural rights.
All laws are backed by violence. That's called law enforcement.
It's a good thing that natural rights are a real thing and not just something you enjoy ranting into your computer about.