5 ms·

Advertising is speech. The more exceptions we carve into free speech, the easier it is for governments to censor. It is authoritarian to dictate what one person

Advertising is speech. The more exceptions we carve into free speech, the easier it is for governments to censor. It is authoritarian to dictate what one person can say to another. That authority may be justified in limited categories like threats or fraud. When those categories become too broad, the authority gains a hugely powerful tool to manipulate and cement itself in place. I don't think I have the right to get between two people and silence one of them, just because I think he's trying to sell something.

TotempaaltJ 7y ago
Corporations don't, or shouldn't, have a right to free speech.
- idoh 7y ago
  The "right to free speech" is more a prohibition (via the first amendment) on Congress passing laws that abridges speech, and not a granting of rights to this or that entity.
- buboard 7y ago
  even if your proposal has merit, the most contentious type of advertising seems to be political advertising . I don't read often complaints about flower store advertisements. yet politicians are not corporations
- EpicEng 7y ago
  Says who, you? That's nice. >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances There's no mention of "people" or "citizen" in that text. The government *cannot prohibit speech". Of course, there are a few exceptions to that rule, but making more should have an incredibly high bar for approval, and you want to use it for advertising? Enact laws that protect people from malicious and over zealous tracking, which I'm sure we would both agree is a gross violation of privacy.
zanny 7y ago
Do you have the right to get between two people if one is trying to convince the other to take drugs? To self harm? To harm others? To verbally abuse them? To maliciously deceive and lie to them? To swindle or rob them? Those last few points is why I have no personal conflict considering modern advertising wholly independent of free speech. Advertising for the purpose of informing someone a product exists would have been fine... in 1920. In 2019 there is no longer limited access to information like that. If I have a problem that needs solving I can seek out information on it on my own. I don't need corporations shoving it in my face against my will as much as they can. And on top of that they don't do it just for informative purposes. Modern advertising has become cancerous and predatory in its attempts to manipulate people into buying things they don't homeostatically want with money they probably don't have. Its exploitative "speech" meant to rob people designed and implemented by those who hold degrees in psychological sciences meant to take advantage of human biochemistry for profit. I'd be willing to hear a compromise position on the validity of informational advertising - a side banner that says "Duracell ranked the longest lasting battery by XXX independent group!" but not "Duracell batteries will save your life because they last longer, if you don't buy our batteries your kids will die!" is less unethical. But its a slippery slope - advertisers will always want to exploit people psychologically rather than just be informative. Thats more profitable. I don't think for a second the marginal information utility of unsolicited advertising - remember, information age - is worth the constant attempts for exploitation that modern advertising is wholly immersed in.

TotempaaltJ 7y ago

Corporations don't, or shouldn't, have a right to free speech.

idoh 7y ago
The "right to free speech" is more a prohibition (via the first amendment) on Congress passing laws that abridges speech, and not a granting of rights to this or that entity.
buboard 7y ago
even if your proposal has merit, the most contentious type of advertising seems to be political advertising . I don't read often complaints about flower store advertisements. yet politicians are not corporations
EpicEng 7y ago
Says who, you? That's nice. >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances There's no mention of "people" or "citizen" in that text. The government *cannot prohibit speech". Of course, there are a few exceptions to that rule, but making more should have an incredibly high bar for approval, and you want to use it for advertising? Enact laws that protect people from malicious and over zealous tracking, which I'm sure we would both agree is a gross violation of privacy.

zanny 7y ago

Do you have the right to get between two people if one is trying to convince the other to take drugs? To self harm? To harm others? To verbally abuse them? To maliciously deceive and lie to them? To swindle or rob them? Those last few points is why I have no personal conflict considering modern advertising wholly independent of free speech. Advertising for the purpose of informing someone a product exists would have been fine... in 1920. In 2019 there is no longer limited access to information like that. If I have a problem that needs solving I can seek out information on it on my own. I don't need corporations shoving it in my face against my will as much as they can. And on top of that they don't do it just for informative purposes. Modern advertising has become cancerous and predatory in its attempts to manipulate people into buying things they don't homeostatically want with money they probably don't have. Its exploitative "speech" meant to rob people designed and implemented by those who hold degrees in psychological sciences meant to take advantage of human biochemistry for profit. I'd be willing to hear a compromise position on the validity of informational advertising - a side banner that says "Duracell ranked the longest lasting battery by XXX independent group!" but not "Duracell batteries will save your life because they last longer, if you don't buy our batteries your kids will die!" is less unethical. But its a slippery slope - advertisers will always want to exploit people psychologically rather than just be informative. Thats more profitable. I don't think for a second the marginal information utility of unsolicited advertising - remember, information age - is worth the constant attempts for exploitation that modern advertising is wholly immersed in.