3 ms·

> It exists solely to influence the behaviour of a third party not involved in the transaction. And? So are speeches, and HN comments. As long as it isn't frau

> It exists solely to influence the behaviour of a third party not involved in the transaction. And? So are speeches, and HN comments. As long as it isn't fraudulent, I don't see where the aggression/externality comes into play. Similarly, just because someone put up a building you don't like to look at on property that wasn't yours does NOT entitle you to reparations (or the building owner to taxes for the corresponding 'externality'), because in a practical society, it is ridiculous to claim that you were harmed.

Spivak 9y ago
That would be a little silly, but an ugly building is nonetheless a negative externality not terribly different from existing rules. Constantly playing loud music is a punishable negative externality on your neighbors. The same is true for bright lights. And the raison d'etre for HOAs is practically to protect property values from being affected by dirty and poorly maintained homes. All these originate on someone else's property. Content is where I think the determination would be made -- if you painted an obscene mural on the side of your house I'm sure the courts would make you take it down, but even if your neighbor despised impressionism you would definitely get to keep it if it was Water Lilies. The question is where on the spectrum to advertisements fall: they're not obscene, but they also not harmless. They have a measurable effect on people, maybe informative, maybe harmful.
- lend000 9y ago
  > The question is where on the spectrum to advertisements fall: they're not obscene, but they also not harmless. They have a measurable effect on people, maybe informative, maybe harmful. Exactly. And the only ways our society could agree an advertisement is harmful is if it 1. was fraudulent, as I said or 2. was obscene/offensive/hateful (see: fighting words category of exceptions to first amendment). However, the OP seemed to think billboards are externalities in and of themselves just because he didn't want to be influenced by any information.

Spivak 9y ago

That would be a little silly, but an ugly building is nonetheless a negative externality not terribly different from existing rules. Constantly playing loud music is a punishable negative externality on your neighbors. The same is true for bright lights. And the raison d'etre for HOAs is practically to protect property values from being affected by dirty and poorly maintained homes. All these originate on someone else's property. Content is where I think the determination would be made -- if you painted an obscene mural on the side of your house I'm sure the courts would make you take it down, but even if your neighbor despised impressionism you would definitely get to keep it if it was Water Lilies. The question is where on the spectrum to advertisements fall: they're not obscene, but they also not harmless. They have a measurable effect on people, maybe informative, maybe harmful.

lend000 9y ago
> The question is where on the spectrum to advertisements fall: they're not obscene, but they also not harmless. They have a measurable effect on people, maybe informative, maybe harmful. Exactly. And the only ways our society could agree an advertisement is harmful is if it 1. was fraudulent, as I said or 2. was obscene/offensive/hateful (see: fighting words category of exceptions to first amendment). However, the OP seemed to think billboards are externalities in and of themselves just because he didn't want to be influenced by any information.