4 ms·

A general sentiment I see here is that ads should be banned, but what can be done in the US? The First Amendment protects truthful advertisements. In addition,

A general sentiment I see here is that ads should be banned, but what can be done in the US? The First Amendment protects truthful advertisements. In addition, we have the FTC for misleading and lying ads (although their success is not what it should be (case in point: OutBrain and Taboola)). So, what do we do? Further reading on the 1st Amendment and advertising: http://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html http://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Hudson_Gas_%26_Electric_Corp._v._Public_Service_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Hudson_Gas_%26_Electri...

eugeniub 7y ago
Generally, the first amendment restricts the ability to enact laws banning certain types of ads over other ads, but not laws banning all ads from certain areas. For example, four states — Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, and Maine — have banned billboard advertisements.[1] Vermont was the first to ban them in 1968[2] and these laws haven't been challenged on first amendment grounds, though presumably their passages were fought. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard#Laws_limiting_billboards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard#Laws_limiting_billbo... [2]: https://vnrc.org/community-planning-toolbox/tools/billboard-and-sign-control/ https://vnrc.org/community-planning-toolbox/tools/billboard-...
- deogeo 7y ago
  I should clarify the parent post - when they said "types of ads", what they really meant is the content. The 1st amendment forbids the government from discriminating on the content of a message, but they can restrict messaging in general. Though I believe there are limits to how much they can restrict that as well - a blanket ban on protests, for example, would likely not fly.
munk-a 7y ago
There is no part of the 1st Amendment that states that people need to read your advertising, additionally some states (like VT) have full bans on billboards - regardless of the reasoning for this that ban has been upheld and private citizens can't compel the state to allow placement of billboards on public property - there are also various style related laws (in Boston you need a special permit when constructing on Beacon Hill that makes it very difficult to build non-brick faced buildings) there is nothing illegal at a constitutional level in either of these cases. The 1st Amendment prevents discrimination of advertising (you can't chose to disallow ads for raspberries but be all in for strawberry ads because you, the mayor, find raspberries offensive) but there is no guarantee to the right of other people's attention. Advertisements on public property can absolutely be banned and, possibly with an ordnance, I believe you could heavily restrict advertising on private property. The government can't shut you up when expressing protected speech, but it doesn't have to help you talk, nor does it have to make people listen to you.
Ericson2314 7y ago
Perhaps common law precedent screws us over. But I don't see a problem in principle following the spirit, or even word of the written law: 1) Spying ads absolutely are more than speech: the information flow is bidirectional, and the 1st amendment isn't a right to listen. 2) It could be argued that the state cannot sell advertisements without privileging one message over another; currently "non-political ad" rules already contested, and they are even more of laughing stock beyond that once one considers that all commerce and economic activity is political. Only laws that limit the amount of messaging rather than the content are truly unbiased. 3) For private ads, while the owner of the building owns the surface where the ad is, I don't think it is fair to say they own the sight lines to the building. The problem with ADs is they can literally leave you nowhere to look when you are moving in public spaces the advertiser definitely doesn't own. I think a comparison could be made with EM spectrum law. Just because you own the antenna doesn't mean you can broadcast whatever you like. Electric adds that have their own lighting are certainly broadcasters. And if passive things like giant RFIDs are regulated, We could probably get non-illuminated ads also to be regulated. So assuming all the above gets through the courts, we can do nothing about urinal ads in private establishments, but we can clean up public spaces completely, or at least limit them to non-illuminated ads. At that point, I hope the remaining indoor ads would be far more annoying in relative terms, and that would create some helpful economic pressure for the owner to tamp them down.
jimbob45 7y ago
Nobody wants ads banned. The problem is that ads are being placed into previously unused places and louder than before. The result is that all companies have to compete with these new obnoxious ads or risk falling behind their competitors that are willing to put ads in distasteful places. In my opinion, the solution is to clearly define a discrete set of spaces for ads and make sure everyone is able to compete on equal footing. It's not like these companies want to shell out more money for ads - they simply have to in order to compete. EDIT: Also the US needs to adopt Britain's ban on election ads outside of the election month. We waste a phenomenal amount of time and money on election ads that provide zero real benefit to the US.
- munk-a 7y ago
  > Nobody wants ads banned. I want ads banned. They provide nothing of value and exist only to sway people into buying your product - a lot of advertising isn't overtly malicious but it all exists dependent on an assumption that being told to buy a product is a more valuable use of a time than whatever else you're doing. I suspect that being constantly bombarded with advertising has ill health effects by making it harder to find peace of mind and de-stress yourself, but that's just a gut feeling.
  - reificator 7y ago
    > > Nobody wants ads banned. > I want ads banned. > They provide nothing of value and exist only to sway people into buying your product - a lot of advertising isn't overtly malicious but it all exists dependent on an assumption that being told to buy a product is a more valuable use of a time than whatever else you're doing. I'm a prolific adblocker, but I disagree with you here. I think if things were kept at a reasonable balance, advertising would be a net positive. There have been several times where I've tried new restaurants because of ads. Sometimes I'll go searching to buy a specific thing, and realize that it doesn't yet exist in the market. Then a few months or years later, I'll see an advertisement for that thing, and I'm always very appreciative. That's not to mention that if ads were banned tomorrow, the established brands would have decades of advantage built up against newcomers, becoming a self-reinforcing monopoly that I'd imagine would last decades after the last person to have seen an ad dies. And don't forget, making something illegal doesn't mean it goes away. Look at how often people accuse accounts on social media of astroturfing. Do you think that astroturfing will become more or less common after a ban on advertising? At least with ads legal I can evaluate them as ads. I can't tell which glowing reviews are legitimate and which are planted, and if you think you can I'd put money against you. > I suspect that being constantly bombarded with advertising has ill health effects by making it harder to find peace of mind and de-stress yourself, but that's just a gut feeling. I definitely agree with you on that. The current state of ads is nothing less than an assault on people's cognitive abilities and mental health. Something needs to give here.

eugeniub 7y ago

Generally, the first amendment restricts the ability to enact laws banning certain types of ads over other ads, but not laws banning all ads from certain areas. For example, four states — Vermont, Alaska, Hawaii, and Maine — have banned billboard advertisements.[1] Vermont was the first to ban them in 1968[2] and these laws haven't been challenged on first amendment grounds, though presumably their passages were fought. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard#Laws_limiting_billboards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard#Laws_limiting_billbo... [2]: https://vnrc.org/community-planning-toolbox/tools/billboard-and-sign-control/ https://vnrc.org/community-planning-toolbox/tools/billboard-...

deogeo 7y ago
I should clarify the parent post - when they said "types of ads", what they really meant is the content. The 1st amendment forbids the government from discriminating on the content of a message, but they can restrict messaging in general. Though I believe there are limits to how much they can restrict that as well - a blanket ban on protests, for example, would likely not fly.

munk-a 7y ago

There is no part of the 1st Amendment that states that people need to read your advertising, additionally some states (like VT) have full bans on billboards - regardless of the reasoning for this that ban has been upheld and private citizens can't compel the state to allow placement of billboards on public property - there are also various style related laws (in Boston you need a special permit when constructing on Beacon Hill that makes it very difficult to build non-brick faced buildings) there is nothing illegal at a constitutional level in either of these cases. The 1st Amendment prevents discrimination of advertising (you can't chose to disallow ads for raspberries but be all in for strawberry ads because you, the mayor, find raspberries offensive) but there is no guarantee to the right of other people's attention. Advertisements on public property can absolutely be banned and, possibly with an ordnance, I believe you could heavily restrict advertising on private property. The government can't shut you up when expressing protected speech, but it doesn't have to help you talk, nor does it have to make people listen to you.

Ericson2314 7y ago

Perhaps common law precedent screws us over. But I don't see a problem in principle following the spirit, or even word of the written law: 1) Spying ads absolutely are more than speech: the information flow is bidirectional, and the 1st amendment isn't a right to listen. 2) It could be argued that the state cannot sell advertisements without privileging one message over another; currently "non-political ad" rules already contested, and they are even more of laughing stock beyond that once one considers that all commerce and economic activity is political. Only laws that limit the amount of messaging rather than the content are truly unbiased. 3) For private ads, while the owner of the building owns the surface where the ad is, I don't think it is fair to say they own the sight lines to the building. The problem with ADs is they can literally leave you nowhere to look when you are moving in public spaces the advertiser definitely doesn't own. I think a comparison could be made with EM spectrum law. Just because you own the antenna doesn't mean you can broadcast whatever you like. Electric adds that have their own lighting are certainly broadcasters. And if passive things like giant RFIDs are regulated, We could probably get non-illuminated ads also to be regulated. So assuming all the above gets through the courts, we can do nothing about urinal ads in private establishments, but we can clean up public spaces completely, or at least limit them to non-illuminated ads. At that point, I hope the remaining indoor ads would be far more annoying in relative terms, and that would create some helpful economic pressure for the owner to tamp them down.

jimbob45 7y ago

Nobody wants ads banned. The problem is that ads are being placed into previously unused places and louder than before. The result is that all companies have to compete with these new obnoxious ads or risk falling behind their competitors that are willing to put ads in distasteful places. In my opinion, the solution is to clearly define a discrete set of spaces for ads and make sure everyone is able to compete on equal footing. It's not like these companies want to shell out more money for ads - they simply have to in order to compete. EDIT: Also the US needs to adopt Britain's ban on election ads outside of the election month. We waste a phenomenal amount of time and money on election ads that provide zero real benefit to the US.

munk-a 7y ago
> Nobody wants ads banned. I want ads banned. They provide nothing of value and exist only to sway people into buying your product - a lot of advertising isn't overtly malicious but it all exists dependent on an assumption that being told to buy a product is a more valuable use of a time than whatever else you're doing. I suspect that being constantly bombarded with advertising has ill health effects by making it harder to find peace of mind and de-stress yourself, but that's just a gut feeling.
- reificator 7y ago
  > > Nobody wants ads banned. > I want ads banned. > They provide nothing of value and exist only to sway people into buying your product - a lot of advertising isn't overtly malicious but it all exists dependent on an assumption that being told to buy a product is a more valuable use of a time than whatever else you're doing. I'm a prolific adblocker, but I disagree with you here. I think if things were kept at a reasonable balance, advertising would be a net positive. There have been several times where I've tried new restaurants because of ads. Sometimes I'll go searching to buy a specific thing, and realize that it doesn't yet exist in the market. Then a few months or years later, I'll see an advertisement for that thing, and I'm always very appreciative. That's not to mention that if ads were banned tomorrow, the established brands would have decades of advantage built up against newcomers, becoming a self-reinforcing monopoly that I'd imagine would last decades after the last person to have seen an ad dies. And don't forget, making something illegal doesn't mean it goes away. Look at how often people accuse accounts on social media of astroturfing. Do you think that astroturfing will become more or less common after a ban on advertising? At least with ads legal I can evaluate them as ads. I can't tell which glowing reviews are legitimate and which are planted, and if you think you can I'd put money against you. > I suspect that being constantly bombarded with advertising has ill health effects by making it harder to find peace of mind and de-stress yourself, but that's just a gut feeling. I definitely agree with you on that. The current state of ads is nothing less than an assault on people's cognitive abilities and mental health. Something needs to give here.