9 ms·

I can see it now... "Advertisements are a form of free speech. Corporations are people too."

aub3bhat 10y ago
Advertisements are a form of free speech. 6 vs 3 Supreme Court "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc. "
- 2bitencryption 10y ago
  This is the reason why in the USA you will see commercials for medications ("Ask your doctor about XYZ; you know, instead of letting your doctor decide what's best.")
  - aub3bhat 10y ago
    Hahah Actually its worse, "Ask your doctor about XYZ, and if your doctor did not tell you about it, We will find out! Since we know her name and how much XYZ she prescribed vs generic ABC!"
  - treehau5_ 10y ago
    It was Pfizer that pioneered that, and it's cataloged wonderfully in the book "Overdosed America"
  - takeda 10y ago
    Is it really, so why they don't advertise cigarettes?
    - chadgeidel 10y ago
      Because - at least in the US - Tobacco advertising is specifically banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Cigarette_Smoking_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Cigarette_Smokin...
      - takeda 10y ago
        But if it is a free speech, doesn't this law then violate the constitution? I would imagine that if it was a free speech, then tobacco industry already would have this law thrown out.
        zyx321 10y ago
        Can you legally tell children to kill themselves?
        amputect 10y ago
        Only if you do it on twitter.
- mrcactu5 10y ago
  cases like these usually depend on who is making money in the event of a decision. business make money off advertisements, therefore it's free speech
- brightsize 10y ago
  >Advertisements are a form of free speech. ...that can be regulated: "After passage of the billboard-regulating Highway Beautification Act of 1965, Vermont moved to ban billboards outright in 1968. All billboards were gone from Vermont by 1974. Vermont is one of four states to have prohibited by law all billboards from view of highway rights-of-way, except for signs on the contiguous property of the business location." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Vermont#Conservation_and_development.E2.80.94Title_10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Vermont#Conservati...
  - yazbo_mcclure 10y ago
    Wow that makes sense now. Vermont seems so like stepping back in time
  - jaredklewis 10y ago
    > ...that can be regulated: And in the interest of further eludicating those those that are unfamiliar with the nuanced manner in which courts use the term "free speech," I would say: "That can be regulated, just like all other forms of free speech." Even protected categories of speech like political speech can be regulated assuming the government interest passes strict scrutiny.
- deno 10y ago
  If ads are protected free speech how are tobacco ads illegal?
  - x0x0 10y ago
    Speech is regulated all the time. Free speech in practice means we bias towards permitting speech, but many categories of speech are regulated. To wit: you cannot lie in advertisements, you cannot incite imminent violence, you can be successfully sued for slander and/or libel, etc. Read the first two paragraphs of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite... ; it also discusses commercial speech.
    - deno 10y ago
      United States still has obscenity laws, a backdoor around first amendment, which can be interpreted to mean whatever the court wants it to mean in any given situation. It exists, unchallenged, because otherwise child pornography would have to be legal. My question was, wouldn’t this ruling be a basis to challenge the outright Tobacco ad ban? Before the ban there was still regulation, the ads had to be offset with other content, pro-health etc. Just like with political ads on public airwaves now. In Canada, for example, the Tobacco ban was successfully challenged in court as violating Freedom of Speech as recently as 1991. Ultimately the ban remained in place because of another backdoor called “peace, order, and good government.”
pjc50 10y ago
Watch out for the corresponding ruling that adblockers are not free speech ...
JoshTriplett 10y ago
Advertisements, like any communication, are a form of free speech, but it'd be unprecedented to demand that anyone provide an audience for your speech. You can speak all you like; nobody is obligated to listen.
- bduerst 10y ago
  The audience isn't obligated to listen, but it's also not entitled to use content in a manner that the copyright holder doesn't want them to either. If a copyright holder (like Forbes) stipulates that their content is paid for using ads and they won't let you consume it without looking at the ads, then you're neither obligated to or entitled to consume it.
  - JoshTriplett 10y ago
    Website terms of service are not law, no matter how people have abused the CFAA. You can't control how a browser displays content, whether it does so with a browser, screen reader, or musical interpretive dance. I look forward to seeing that battle play out.
    - CalRobert 10y ago
      Not to mention this basically makes cURL illegal..
      - Filligree 10y ago
        cURL. That's that hacking tool, right? I think I saw it in the Matrix. It's used by nmap.
    - bduerst 10y ago
      Lack of means of enforcement doesn't void a copyright. Forbes in this case seems to be able to control it to a certain degree anyways.
    - daxelrod 10y ago
wnevets 10y ago
This was the argument telemarketers used, it was their right to call you and try to sell you crap you don't need!
- yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
  That sounds annoyingly plausible; how did that claim get overturned?
apsec112 10y ago
x
- drdeca 10y ago
  Wouldn't that fall under freedom of the press?
- coddingtonbear 10y ago
  Although I agree (in essence) that legal personhood is something most people misunderstand, I'm not sure the NYT is a very good example given that "the press" is specifically listed in the text of the first amendment (and has been understood to mean a newspaper production organization since even before the amendment was ratified).
rayiner 10y ago
Hey how do you feel about corporate speech now that you've got someone like Trump who could've used the opposite ruling in Citizens United to clamp down on media criticism?

Advertisements are a form of free speech. 6 vs 3 Supreme Court "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrell_v._IMS_Health_Inc. "

2bitencryption 10y ago
This is the reason why in the USA you will see commercials for medications ("Ask your doctor about XYZ; you know, instead of letting your doctor decide what's best.")
- aub3bhat 10y ago
  Hahah Actually its worse, "Ask your doctor about XYZ, and if your doctor did not tell you about it, We will find out! Since we know her name and how much XYZ she prescribed vs generic ABC!"
- treehau5_ 10y ago
  It was Pfizer that pioneered that, and it's cataloged wonderfully in the book "Overdosed America"
- takeda 10y ago
  Is it really, so why they don't advertise cigarettes?
  - chadgeidel 10y ago
    Because - at least in the US - Tobacco advertising is specifically banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Cigarette_Smoking_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Cigarette_Smokin...
    - takeda 10y ago
      But if it is a free speech, doesn't this law then violate the constitution? I would imagine that if it was a free speech, then tobacco industry already would have this law thrown out.
      - zyx321 10y ago
        Can you legally tell children to kill themselves?
        amputect 10y ago
        Only if you do it on twitter.
mrcactu5 10y ago
cases like these usually depend on who is making money in the event of a decision. business make money off advertisements, therefore it's free speech
brightsize 10y ago
>Advertisements are a form of free speech. ...that can be regulated: "After passage of the billboard-regulating Highway Beautification Act of 1965, Vermont moved to ban billboards outright in 1968. All billboards were gone from Vermont by 1974. Vermont is one of four states to have prohibited by law all billboards from view of highway rights-of-way, except for signs on the contiguous property of the business location." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Vermont#Conservation_and_development.E2.80.94Title_10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Vermont#Conservati...
- yazbo_mcclure 10y ago
  Wow that makes sense now. Vermont seems so like stepping back in time
- jaredklewis 10y ago
  > ...that can be regulated: And in the interest of further eludicating those those that are unfamiliar with the nuanced manner in which courts use the term "free speech," I would say: "That can be regulated, just like all other forms of free speech." Even protected categories of speech like political speech can be regulated assuming the government interest passes strict scrutiny.
deno 10y ago
If ads are protected free speech how are tobacco ads illegal?
- x0x0 10y ago
  Speech is regulated all the time. Free speech in practice means we bias towards permitting speech, but many categories of speech are regulated. To wit: you cannot lie in advertisements, you cannot incite imminent violence, you can be successfully sued for slander and/or libel, etc. Read the first two paragraphs of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_Unite... ; it also discusses commercial speech.
  - deno 10y ago
    United States still has obscenity laws, a backdoor around first amendment, which can be interpreted to mean whatever the court wants it to mean in any given situation. It exists, unchallenged, because otherwise child pornography would have to be legal. My question was, wouldn’t this ruling be a basis to challenge the outright Tobacco ad ban? Before the ban there was still regulation, the ads had to be offset with other content, pro-health etc. Just like with political ads on public airwaves now. In Canada, for example, the Tobacco ban was successfully challenged in court as violating Freedom of Speech as recently as 1991. Ultimately the ban remained in place because of another backdoor called “peace, order, and good government.”

pjc50 10y ago

Watch out for the corresponding ruling that adblockers are not free speech ...

JoshTriplett 10y ago

Advertisements, like any communication, are a form of free speech, but it'd be unprecedented to demand that anyone provide an audience for your speech. You can speak all you like; nobody is obligated to listen.

bduerst 10y ago
The audience isn't obligated to listen, but it's also not entitled to use content in a manner that the copyright holder doesn't want them to either. If a copyright holder (like Forbes) stipulates that their content is paid for using ads and they won't let you consume it without looking at the ads, then you're neither obligated to or entitled to consume it.
- JoshTriplett 10y ago
  Website terms of service are not law, no matter how people have abused the CFAA. You can't control how a browser displays content, whether it does so with a browser, screen reader, or musical interpretive dance. I look forward to seeing that battle play out.
  - CalRobert 10y ago
    Not to mention this basically makes cURL illegal..
    - Filligree 10y ago
      cURL. That's that hacking tool, right? I think I saw it in the Matrix. It's used by nmap.
  - bduerst 10y ago
    Lack of means of enforcement doesn't void a copyright. Forbes in this case seems to be able to control it to a certain degree anyways.
  - daxelrod 10y ago

wnevets 10y ago

This was the argument telemarketers used, it was their right to call you and try to sell you crap you don't need!

yjftsjthsd-h 10y ago
That sounds annoyingly plausible; how did that claim get overturned?

apsec112 10y ago

drdeca 10y ago
Wouldn't that fall under freedom of the press?
coddingtonbear 10y ago
Although I agree (in essence) that legal personhood is something most people misunderstand, I'm not sure the NYT is a very good example given that "the press" is specifically listed in the text of the first amendment (and has been understood to mean a newspaper production organization since even before the amendment was ratified).

rayiner 10y ago

Hey how do you feel about corporate speech now that you've got someone like Trump who could've used the opposite ruling in Citizens United to clamp down on media criticism?