zlacker

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.

>>delich+(OP)
anarchy, eh? lawlesness is what you pitch is?

>>delich+(OP)
What kind of "bottom up" perspective gives a damn about protecting billboards?

>>delich+(OP)
yeah I don't think it should be banned

>>delich+(OP)
Billboards are obnoxious, ugly, and as the article pointed out, have basically no oversight from city design boards, meaning that they're not under any obligation to look nice.

In fact, there's almost a reverse incentive; if it clashes with the rest of the city's aesthetic, you're much more likely to notice it.

I don't really see how it's hurting "free speech" to restrict billboards. No one is suggesting we regulate the speech, no one is telling these companies what to say, we just don't want big ugly billboards blasting in our face and making our cities look terrible.

You're of course free to disagree with this, but you almost certainly draw the line somewhere. If I went and dumped a bunch of trash and feces into the middle of the street every day, you probably wouldn't be outraged when I eventually get a ticket, and I doubt that making a "free speech" argument would get me out of that fine, even if I explained the artistic merit of me doing that.

>>delich+(OP)
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.

>>bdangu+8
People like you say this until the other party is in power, and bans stuff you don’t like, then you will cry about free speech too.

I won’t die on the hill of saving billboards anymore than id die on the hill of not taxing billionaires but sorry, whats fair is fair.

>>Vaslo+Z1
I am actually arguing quite the opposite, I am very anti-banning but where do you draw the line? it is a fine line between lawlessness and allowing bunch of idiots (regardless of which "political party" they are affiliated with) to make these decisions. so how do you get this done? obviously lawlessness is not the answer?

>>wormiu+91
People without money to spend can use debt to amplify their message.

>>delich+(OP)
What exactly is authoritarian and from the top down about the majority of people deciding that they do not want a minority of rich people and especially companies to place huge ads everywhere in public places where everyone is forced to see them?

The majority deciding to ban the minority with enough money from taking over public spaces and forcing the majority to see their ads seems very bottom up to me.

>>charci+M4
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.

>>charci+M4
Be grateful I'm deleting my followup message and I'm getting older and wiser and learning to shut up. You can waste your eyeball resources on something other than my comments which will convince no-one. Have a nice life.