4 ms·

Why shouldn’t they be banned too?

DavidAdams 3y ago
If you don't have the right to hold up a sign saying whatever you want on land that you own, it's a serious limitation on your free speech. So while I think it's reasonable to place safety and aesthetic restrictions on advertising, it's worth balancing those restrictions against free speech ideals.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Man, am I glad that the UK has the Advertising Standards Authority ensuring I don't have to deal with an unlimited stream of fraud. Oh and there's essentially zero political advertising on TV, it's all submarined into "news" programmes. (I would possibly make an exception for cases where people want to put their speech on their land, but the moment it's a corporation paying someone to put up an advert? That's not individual speech any more, is it?)
- philipwhiuk 3y ago
  You don't need to have free speech right to be paid for someone else's board though to protect that. We can make it really tedious to advertise by forcing them to buy the land itself and deal with title transfer, without impacting free speech of people.
- flohofwoe 3y ago
  Advertisement is now "free speech"? That's an "interesting interpretation" to say the least.
pmoriarty 3y ago
I would not miss a single one. "...in a single year, São Paulo removed 15,000 billboards, many of which were replaced by street art." https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/11/can-cities-kick-ads-ban-urban-billboards https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/11/can-cities-ki...
toss1 3y ago
Billboards ARE banned in some states, e.g., Vermont. It is immediately noticeably nicer to drive there vs neighboring states. It also generates a few fun stories, such as the grandfathered-still-existing tall sign north of Brattleboro that said "Steak $5.99" for years after the steak house had changed. Eventually, while it was being leased to an Asian restaurant, people protested that it was false advertising (as steak had not been available for years and certainly not at that price). The landlord still wanting to keep the sign, but not allowed to change it, removed the "S", "K", and "$5.99", so the sign read "TEA" for many more years, and AFAIK, still does.

If you don't have the right to hold up a sign saying whatever you want on land that you own, it's a serious limitation on your free speech. So while I think it's reasonable to place safety and aesthetic restrictions on advertising, it's worth balancing those restrictions against free speech ideals.

pjc50 3y ago
Man, am I glad that the UK has the Advertising Standards Authority ensuring I don't have to deal with an unlimited stream of fraud. Oh and there's essentially zero political advertising on TV, it's all submarined into "news" programmes. (I would possibly make an exception for cases where people want to put their speech on their land, but the moment it's a corporation paying someone to put up an advert? That's not individual speech any more, is it?)
philipwhiuk 3y ago
You don't need to have free speech right to be paid for someone else's board though to protect that. We can make it really tedious to advertise by forcing them to buy the land itself and deal with title transfer, without impacting free speech of people.
flohofwoe 3y ago
Advertisement is now "free speech"? That's an "interesting interpretation" to say the least.

pmoriarty 3y ago

I would not miss a single one. "...in a single year, São Paulo removed 15,000 billboards, many of which were replaced by street art." https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/11/can-cities-kick-ads-ban-urban-billboards https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/aug/11/can-cities-ki...

toss1 3y ago

Billboards ARE banned in some states, e.g., Vermont. It is immediately noticeably nicer to drive there vs neighboring states. It also generates a few fun stories, such as the grandfathered-still-existing tall sign north of Brattleboro that said "Steak $5.99" for years after the steak house had changed. Eventually, while it was being leased to an Asian restaurant, people protested that it was false advertising (as steak had not been available for years and certainly not at that price). The landlord still wanting to keep the sign, but not allowed to change it, removed the "S", "K", and "$5.99", so the sign read "TEA" for many more years, and AFAIK, still does.