5 ms·

This is free speech. It's not open for discussion. Our right to free speech is not granted by anyone's consent or by government decree. It preexists the state

This is free speech. It's not open for discussion. Our right to free speech is not granted by anyone's consent or by government decree. It preexists the state and cannot be taken away. We hold this truth to be self-evident. We are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. If any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it.

vaindil 2y ago
I feel that this is a very black and white view of the issue. I don't want to see billboards as I drive down the freeway, but I have no choice (in the US) if I need to get somewhere far away. Several states have banned outdoor billboards, should those governments be dissolved? At some point the public interest overrides an absolute freedom of speech. We can debate where that line is, but "it's not open for discussion" is objectively incorrect.
- bofadeez 2y ago
  It's just paraphrasing the declaration of independence. This is already the established world order. You have an extremist point of view that your right to free speech is granted to you by the government.
  - vaindil 2y ago
    I'm not sure what comment you meant to reply to, but it certainly wasn't mine, as you have my ideology backwards there.
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  > We can debate where that line is, but "it's not open for discussion" is objectively incorrect. This is inherently a subjective matter. It's not possible to be objectively incorrect on whether or not speech protection should be absolute.
kcatskcolbdi 2y ago
Of course it's open for discussion. Free speech is not limitless. You can wax poetically all you want about endowment by the creator, but try saying racial slurs on daytime TV and see how long that lasts. Advertisement is just another form of speech that can be limited.
- bofadeez 2y ago
  "Congress shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." What part of that are you confused by? You are making a brash claim that the writ of the state includes the ability to censor speech. Your right to free speech is not granted by anyone. It's your natural right. It's not possible to separate this right from a human with a law.
  - kcatskcolbdi 2y ago
    There are already established legal limits on speech. Again, try screaming racial slurs on daytime television. You will be met with a fine and/or imprisonment. I am not a lawyer. I am not a member of congress. I did not write the law. I don't particularly like or agree with those laws. But they exist, and unless I'm mistaken it seems like you're unwilling to acknowledge their existence.
    - bofadeez 2y ago
      That's not what is being discussed though. You missed the point.
  - GolfPopper 2y ago
    That a significant proportion of advertising involves deceit, coercion, and captive audiences says a great deal about the nature of it. The First Amendment codifies the right to say what you want, to print or otherwise make public your thoughts. That doesn't give anyone, or anything, a right to force their ideas into the minds of the public or a subset thereof. And while advertisers are not quite yet forcing anyone to consume their product at the proverbial "barrel of a gun" they are far beyond the norms of human communication. It is not acceptable for a stranger to come up and start shouting at you while you're trying to read, or hold a conversation, do your shopping, or put gas in your car. So why is it somehow acceptable for advertisers to do so? Would you want to pay for a course of instruction, some unknown percentage of which was not instruction, but was actually conducted at the direction of unknown others, who, with no regard or concern for your life, liberty, well-being or happiness were trying to extract wealth from you? Yet that is exactly what happens with much of our media-mediated experience of the world. I think the underlying changes in the technology of communication have allowed advertising to grow without sufficient thought on whether such expansion was actually a public good. Like license plates - the impact of which changed radically when the government could, thanks to advances in technology, use them to monitor the position of virtually all vehicles over time, instead of being forced to physically look up who owned what vehicle - the explosion of media over the last century has been accompanied by an immense shift in the impact and capability and intrusiveness of advertising. And it's legality needs to be reassessed in that light.
gibbitz 2y ago
Someone else made the point that ads cost money, so this isn't about free speech. I guess making advertising free would be the same as banning it since it exists to be sold.
- bofadeez 2y ago
  Any voluntary transaction between two conscious, consenting adults is axiomatically ethical and moral.
  - nehal3m 2y ago
    Following your axiom would imply advertisers would need to gain my consent in order to advertise to me. That would be a decent start.
    - bofadeez 2y ago
      No that's not a transaction. We're talking about contracts. Derp.
      - nehal3m 2y ago
        If you follow Merriam Webster for 'transaction' it absolutely is: "a communicative action or activity involving two parties or things that reciprocally affect or influence each other"
        bofadeez 2y ago
        Alright, noted. I'm not writing a law to be interpreted - it's a comment.

vaindil 2y ago

I feel that this is a very black and white view of the issue. I don't want to see billboards as I drive down the freeway, but I have no choice (in the US) if I need to get somewhere far away. Several states have banned outdoor billboards, should those governments be dissolved? At some point the public interest overrides an absolute freedom of speech. We can debate where that line is, but "it's not open for discussion" is objectively incorrect.

bofadeez 2y ago
It's just paraphrasing the declaration of independence. This is already the established world order. You have an extremist point of view that your right to free speech is granted to you by the government.
- vaindil 2y ago
  I'm not sure what comment you meant to reply to, but it certainly wasn't mine, as you have my ideology backwards there.
bigstrat2003 2y ago
> We can debate where that line is, but "it's not open for discussion" is objectively incorrect. This is inherently a subjective matter. It's not possible to be objectively incorrect on whether or not speech protection should be absolute.

kcatskcolbdi 2y ago

Of course it's open for discussion. Free speech is not limitless. You can wax poetically all you want about endowment by the creator, but try saying racial slurs on daytime TV and see how long that lasts. Advertisement is just another form of speech that can be limited.

bofadeez 2y ago
"Congress shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." What part of that are you confused by? You are making a brash claim that the writ of the state includes the ability to censor speech. Your right to free speech is not granted by anyone. It's your natural right. It's not possible to separate this right from a human with a law.
- kcatskcolbdi 2y ago
  There are already established legal limits on speech. Again, try screaming racial slurs on daytime television. You will be met with a fine and/or imprisonment. I am not a lawyer. I am not a member of congress. I did not write the law. I don't particularly like or agree with those laws. But they exist, and unless I'm mistaken it seems like you're unwilling to acknowledge their existence.
  - bofadeez 2y ago
    That's not what is being discussed though. You missed the point.
- GolfPopper 2y ago
  That a significant proportion of advertising involves deceit, coercion, and captive audiences says a great deal about the nature of it. The First Amendment codifies the right to say what you want, to print or otherwise make public your thoughts. That doesn't give anyone, or anything, a right to force their ideas into the minds of the public or a subset thereof. And while advertisers are not quite yet forcing anyone to consume their product at the proverbial "barrel of a gun" they are far beyond the norms of human communication. It is not acceptable for a stranger to come up and start shouting at you while you're trying to read, or hold a conversation, do your shopping, or put gas in your car. So why is it somehow acceptable for advertisers to do so? Would you want to pay for a course of instruction, some unknown percentage of which was not instruction, but was actually conducted at the direction of unknown others, who, with no regard or concern for your life, liberty, well-being or happiness were trying to extract wealth from you? Yet that is exactly what happens with much of our media-mediated experience of the world. I think the underlying changes in the technology of communication have allowed advertising to grow without sufficient thought on whether such expansion was actually a public good. Like license plates - the impact of which changed radically when the government could, thanks to advances in technology, use them to monitor the position of virtually all vehicles over time, instead of being forced to physically look up who owned what vehicle - the explosion of media over the last century has been accompanied by an immense shift in the impact and capability and intrusiveness of advertising. And it's legality needs to be reassessed in that light.

gibbitz 2y ago

Someone else made the point that ads cost money, so this isn't about free speech. I guess making advertising free would be the same as banning it since it exists to be sold.

bofadeez 2y ago
Any voluntary transaction between two conscious, consenting adults is axiomatically ethical and moral.
- nehal3m 2y ago
  Following your axiom would imply advertisers would need to gain my consent in order to advertise to me. That would be a decent start.
  - bofadeez 2y ago
    No that's not a transaction. We're talking about contracts. Derp.
    - nehal3m 2y ago
      If you follow Merriam Webster for 'transaction' it absolutely is: "a communicative action or activity involving two parties or things that reciprocally affect or influence each other"
      - bofadeez 2y ago
        Alright, noted. I'm not writing a law to be interpreted - it's a comment.