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 m

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.