zlacker

>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+(OP)
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+i2
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+07
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+i2
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.

>>tptace+v8
>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.

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

>>tptace+7k
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+YU
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+7b1
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.