zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. ceejay+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-04-07 01:27:47
Step three seemed to pass First Amendment muster for cigarette companies.
replies(2): >>tptace+Q1 >>genewi+Y2
2. tptace+Q1[view] [source] 2025-04-07 01:46:39
>>ceejay+(OP)
Commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment. Regulations of commercial speech need to pass the "Central Hudson Test", which requires a compelling government interest (subject to heightened scrutiny) and narrowly-tailored regulation. Under this rubric, you can get cigarette ads off billboards, but you probably can't regulate Nike's ads.
replies(1): >>kelnos+V6
3. genewi+Y2[view] [source] 2025-04-07 01:55:56
>>ceejay+(OP)
Not only that, but they were then told to post forced speech by a court not let locations that sell cigarettes.

Whatever, I don't see the difference between PMI/RJR advertising and Anheuser-Busch, and Bayer, and Pfizer, and the US Army, and six car insurance companies all claiming to have the lowest rates and best service.

I kicked television out of my house in 2002. I don't have any streaming services provided by a third party, nor do I really listen to the FM band on my car radio, nor XM. The ads are too many to bear.

Pihole, ad nauseam. If you bypass my pihole, my browser clicks every ad you show and sends the data to /dev/null except what site, timestamp, and a thumbnail of the ad. Its not botting; I'm actively hostile to advertising.

◧◩
4. kelnos+V6[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-04-07 02:30:16
>>tptace+Q1
If SCOTUS can develop a test to determine when the government is allowed to violate 1A, then they can loosen that test's requirements. They won't, of course, but I don't see why they couldn't, if they wanted to.
[go to top]