3 ms·

The US constitution explicitly grants regulation of commerce to Congress (see the commerce clause). Whereas the constitution explicitly prohibits the abridging

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...
  - ComputerGuru 6y ago
    But that was the point I was trying to make when you first replied to me. It’s freedom of speech to the extent “we” (the people and their representatives) allow, meaning the first amendment isn’t an absolute barrier to preventing the enforcement of a law “for the common good” (and the abuse that automatically entails, cf anything regarding encryption and the prevention of the distribution of child pornography) and it can accordingly make room for outlawing anything from PACs to advertising prescription medication.
    - parhamn 6y ago
      Well the nuances lie in what "we" and "common good" are. In fact, the fact that these ads have already not been restricted probably implies the thresholds for "we" and "common good" have not been met. Notably America holds a high standard here for "we" (hyper majorities) and "common good" (severe public threat) when it comes to free speech. I don't share you confidence that this is very obviously worth another exemption at a federal level, but I do share your concern with misinformation through these sorts of ads.
      - ComputerGuru 6y ago
        Oh, I'm not arguing for restricting any/either of those. Merely pointing out that the common argument against doing so doesn't hold water in the real world that we live in. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that criminalization tends to only stop law-abiding citizens, have second-order effects that discriminate against those whose needs were not considered by the policy makers at the time, create a hole that's usually filled by another issue/crime, and tend to be far less effective than they were made out to be. Just so my position is clear :)
midasuni 6y ago
I wonder how many commenters actually watched the video, and the section about freedom of speech and the first ammendment
Dylan16807 6y ago
Buying an ad is... commerce.
- ComputerGuru 6y ago
  It’s actually more nuanced than that. The actual buying/selling of the ad is commerce, but the right to spend your money to buy a specific ad is partially first amendment (and partially not).

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...
- ComputerGuru 6y ago
  But that was the point I was trying to make when you first replied to me. It’s freedom of speech to the extent “we” (the people and their representatives) allow, meaning the first amendment isn’t an absolute barrier to preventing the enforcement of a law “for the common good” (and the abuse that automatically entails, cf anything regarding encryption and the prevention of the distribution of child pornography) and it can accordingly make room for outlawing anything from PACs to advertising prescription medication.
  - parhamn 6y ago
    Well the nuances lie in what "we" and "common good" are. In fact, the fact that these ads have already not been restricted probably implies the thresholds for "we" and "common good" have not been met. Notably America holds a high standard here for "we" (hyper majorities) and "common good" (severe public threat) when it comes to free speech. I don't share you confidence that this is very obviously worth another exemption at a federal level, but I do share your concern with misinformation through these sorts of ads.
    - ComputerGuru 6y ago
      Oh, I'm not arguing for restricting any/either of those. Merely pointing out that the common argument against doing so doesn't hold water in the real world that we live in. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that criminalization tends to only stop law-abiding citizens, have second-order effects that discriminate against those whose needs were not considered by the policy makers at the time, create a hole that's usually filled by another issue/crime, and tend to be far less effective than they were made out to be. Just so my position is clear :)

midasuni 6y ago

I wonder how many commenters actually watched the video, and the section about freedom of speech and the first ammendment

Dylan16807 6y ago

Buying an ad is... commerce.

ComputerGuru 6y ago
It’s actually more nuanced than that. The actual buying/selling of the ad is commerce, but the right to spend your money to buy a specific ad is partially first amendment (and partially not).