5 ms·

The ‘defense’ is the first amendment. It would violate it if you prevented people from telling other people about their products.

dawnerd 6y ago
I've heard another defense that's pretty laughable. Goes something like, the ads tell people about conditions they might have but not realize. I fully think we should be banning prescription drugs. There's precedent already for banning product ads - tobacco ads are no longer allowed for example.
- bryan0 6y ago
  I think the more charitable interpretation of this defense is: Ads tell people about conditions they might have, but not realize there is an available drug that can treat it. Or at least an encouragement to talk to their doctor about it.
  - throwawayboise 6y ago
    If your condition isn't bothersome enough that you need an ad to prompt you to mention it to your doctor, perhaps it's not really an issue. I think a lot of these ads prod hypochondriacs to rush to their doctor (or perhaps even the ER) to "tell them about their symptoms" which just drives up costs for everyone.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      > If your condition isn't bothersome enough that you need an ad to prompt you to mention it to your doctor, perhaps it's not really an issue. Au contraire, people will live with all sorts of debilitating conditions, assuming that treatment is exceptionally hard. I lived with an impacted wisdom tooth for a long time, and when it was removed I suddenly realized that it wasn't just a natural way for my body to feel. I also just assumed that I had to poop explosively in the morning just because, and not because I drank the large cup of milk my mother gave me. And that's normal. Loads of people are like this.
      - donpott 6y ago
        All the more so in a place without socialized health care.
        renewiltord 6y ago
        Yeah, in my case, I had access to the health care whenever I wanted. I just never thought to.
ComputerGuru 6y ago
I’ve heard that argument and but it really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. You also have a right to run a business and sell things - such as prescription medication - but that hasn’t stopped the government from (too heavily, imho) restricting that.
- parhamn 6y ago
  The US constitution explicitly grants regulation of commerce to Congress (see the commerce clause). Whereas the constitution explicitly prohibits the abridging of the freedom of speech through law.
  - ComputerGuru 6y ago
    Yes, but let's not pretend there's "absolute" freedom of speech even here in the United States. Cigarette manufacturers no longer have "freedom of speech" to advertise their products with anthropomorphized cartoon characters and relaxing artwork depicting tropical getaways, even though their product is more "freely available" than 5mg of Propranolol, but somehow Tofacitinib¹ ("serious side effects may include infections, cancer, and pulmonary embolism") is spammed on every channel. ¹ I have absolutely nothing against what I'm sure is a very fine drug - it was merely the first result in my search for "most advertised prescription medication" and I'm sure that the side effects are not representative of typical outcome and that someone suffering from serious rheumatoid arthritis is better off taking the drug than not.
    - parhamn 6y ago
      > Yes, but let's not pretend there's "absolute" freedom of speech even here in the United States. This isn't whats happening is it? The exemptions to free speech are well known and taught in entry level civic classes [1]. There are quite a few. Whats happening here is another discussion on the intricacies of free speech (which have hundreds of pages of professional opinion and case law for each exemption) full of nuance. However here, as is the case for most discussion forums, you can only fall into two groups: anarchist or fascist. Heres a more honest view: given free speech laws in the US it's not clear what we should or what is right to do with regards to advertising medicine. We will probably have a populist exemption when it's needed, as we have in the past. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
heymijo 6y ago
When was the last time you saw a cigarette ad on TV? Commercial speech in the United States has limitations. Historically commercial speech was not protected by the 1st amendment. Protections and limitations have largely been established over the past 50 years in Supreme Court rulings [0]. [0] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/939/corporate-speech https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/939/corporate-speec...
- tzs 6y ago
  The comparison to cigarettes isn't very convincing. To legally justify a of regulation of commercial speech, the government must show that it is to directly advance a substantial government interest and it is no more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. Cigarettes physically harm pretty much all of their users, and they are very addicting leading to psychological and financial harm to a large number of users too, and they are available over the counter with no more than an age check to try to keep them out of the hands of non-adults. It's fairly easy to find a substantial government interest in the physical and psychological health of the population, and regulating the spread of something addicting that directly harms that interest directly advances that interest and doesn't seem to be going too far. Prescription drugs cannot even be sold until the government approves them, and even then they can only be sold if prescribed by a doctor. Those measures should already keep them out of the hands of those who would be harmed by them, so it is hard to see what substantial government interest a TV ad ban would directly further that couldn't be better addressed without restricting speech (e.g., limitation on who doctors can prescribe the drug to). I'm not saying that it wouldn't be possible to sufficient justify a TV ad ban on prescription drugs. Just that it is not anywhere near as easy as it is for cigarettes.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    It's incredibly convincing given what happened with opiates and the current hundreds of thousands dead from overdoses over the past 20 years or so.
nulbyte 6y ago
The defenses I've seen are less about free speech and more to the tune of "doctors can't possibly know everything, so you should ask them in case they haven't looked into it." Frankly, if you think a TV advert does a better job at informing you about medical research then your doctor, who spent tons to graduate and more still on continuing education to maintain a license, you probably need new doctor.
anonymfus 6y ago
A person exercises their freedom of speech when they say whatever they want. The advertisement is when somebody is paid to say something with implication that they don't want to say that, as otherwise they would not be paid. So advertisement is an opposite of the freedom of speech. P. S.: I am watching the video and Tom Scott gives a very similar definition of advertisement at 3:44, and basically the whole video is about how that logic is applied in British and American laws. P. P. S.: I am now at the last section "The Land Of The Free" (24:47) where Tom Scott talks specifically about freedom of speech in US, and basically everything in this thread is brought up by him.

dawnerd 6y ago

I've heard another defense that's pretty laughable. Goes something like, the ads tell people about conditions they might have but not realize. I fully think we should be banning prescription drugs. There's precedent already for banning product ads - tobacco ads are no longer allowed for example.

bryan0 6y ago
I think the more charitable interpretation of this defense is: Ads tell people about conditions they might have, but not realize there is an available drug that can treat it. Or at least an encouragement to talk to their doctor about it.
- throwawayboise 6y ago
  If your condition isn't bothersome enough that you need an ad to prompt you to mention it to your doctor, perhaps it's not really an issue. I think a lot of these ads prod hypochondriacs to rush to their doctor (or perhaps even the ER) to "tell them about their symptoms" which just drives up costs for everyone.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    > If your condition isn't bothersome enough that you need an ad to prompt you to mention it to your doctor, perhaps it's not really an issue. Au contraire, people will live with all sorts of debilitating conditions, assuming that treatment is exceptionally hard. I lived with an impacted wisdom tooth for a long time, and when it was removed I suddenly realized that it wasn't just a natural way for my body to feel. I also just assumed that I had to poop explosively in the morning just because, and not because I drank the large cup of milk my mother gave me. And that's normal. Loads of people are like this.
    - donpott 6y ago
      All the more so in a place without socialized health care.
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        Yeah, in my case, I had access to the health care whenever I wanted. I just never thought to.

ComputerGuru 6y ago

I’ve heard that argument and but it really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. You also have a right to run a business and sell things - such as prescription medication - but that hasn’t stopped the government from (too heavily, imho) restricting that.

parhamn 6y ago
The US constitution explicitly grants regulation of commerce to Congress (see the commerce clause). Whereas the constitution explicitly prohibits the abridging of the freedom of speech through law.
- ComputerGuru 6y ago
  Yes, but let's not pretend there's "absolute" freedom of speech even here in the United States. Cigarette manufacturers no longer have "freedom of speech" to advertise their products with anthropomorphized cartoon characters and relaxing artwork depicting tropical getaways, even though their product is more "freely available" than 5mg of Propranolol, but somehow Tofacitinib¹ ("serious side effects may include infections, cancer, and pulmonary embolism") is spammed on every channel. ¹ I have absolutely nothing against what I'm sure is a very fine drug - it was merely the first result in my search for "most advertised prescription medication" and I'm sure that the side effects are not representative of typical outcome and that someone suffering from serious rheumatoid arthritis is better off taking the drug than not.
  - parhamn 6y ago
    > Yes, but let's not pretend there's "absolute" freedom of speech even here in the United States. This isn't whats happening is it? The exemptions to free speech are well known and taught in entry level civic classes [1]. There are quite a few. Whats happening here is another discussion on the intricacies of free speech (which have hundreds of pages of professional opinion and case law for each exemption) full of nuance. However here, as is the case for most discussion forums, you can only fall into two groups: anarchist or fascist. Heres a more honest view: given free speech laws in the US it's not clear what we should or what is right to do with regards to advertising medicine. We will probably have a populist exemption when it's needed, as we have in the past. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

heymijo 6y ago

When was the last time you saw a cigarette ad on TV? Commercial speech in the United States has limitations. Historically commercial speech was not protected by the 1st amendment. Protections and limitations have largely been established over the past 50 years in Supreme Court rulings [0]. [0] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/939/corporate-speech https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/939/corporate-speec...

tzs 6y ago
The comparison to cigarettes isn't very convincing. To legally justify a of regulation of commercial speech, the government must show that it is to directly advance a substantial government interest and it is no more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. Cigarettes physically harm pretty much all of their users, and they are very addicting leading to psychological and financial harm to a large number of users too, and they are available over the counter with no more than an age check to try to keep them out of the hands of non-adults. It's fairly easy to find a substantial government interest in the physical and psychological health of the population, and regulating the spread of something addicting that directly harms that interest directly advances that interest and doesn't seem to be going too far. Prescription drugs cannot even be sold until the government approves them, and even then they can only be sold if prescribed by a doctor. Those measures should already keep them out of the hands of those who would be harmed by them, so it is hard to see what substantial government interest a TV ad ban would directly further that couldn't be better addressed without restricting speech (e.g., limitation on who doctors can prescribe the drug to). I'm not saying that it wouldn't be possible to sufficient justify a TV ad ban on prescription drugs. Just that it is not anywhere near as easy as it is for cigarettes.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  It's incredibly convincing given what happened with opiates and the current hundreds of thousands dead from overdoses over the past 20 years or so.

nulbyte 6y ago

The defenses I've seen are less about free speech and more to the tune of "doctors can't possibly know everything, so you should ask them in case they haven't looked into it." Frankly, if you think a TV advert does a better job at informing you about medical research then your doctor, who spent tons to graduate and more still on continuing education to maintain a license, you probably need new doctor.

anonymfus 6y ago

A person exercises their freedom of speech when they say whatever they want. The advertisement is when somebody is paid to say something with implication that they don't want to say that, as otherwise they would not be paid. So advertisement is an opposite of the freedom of speech. P. S.: I am watching the video and Tom Scott gives a very similar definition of advertisement at 3:44, and basically the whole video is about how that logic is applied in British and American laws. P. P. S.: I am now at the last section "The Land Of The Free" (24:47) where Tom Scott talks specifically about freedom of speech in US, and basically everything in this thread is brought up by him.