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 absolu

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.