6 ms·
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 "
by 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 agoOh, 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 :)