[atypicaluser]

> American obsession with the 1st amendment is so odd. It doesn't allow for any reasonable discussion of nuance of speech.

Who defines 'reasonable'? As the federal government can't involve itself (which is at the heart of this so-called obsession,) the participants in the discussion will have to determine that for themselves. And if they can't agree on what is 'reasonable'?

> restrictions on tobacco advertising

There are restrictions, a brief history of which can be found at Truth Initiative[0]. I wonder, though, if these restrictions remain in place because no one in Big Tobacco will challenge them? Especially if these same restrictions help to keep smaller players out of the market...

[0] https://truthinitiative.org/research-resources/tobacco-indus...

[tayo42]

Idk why you picked on the word reasonable. But your proving my point by attempting to shut down the discussion already

In reality the government is already discussing what is protected and what isn't. Free speech is an illusion. Otherwise we wouldn't have exceptions to free speech. There wouldn't an fcc if it it was truly free.

I think we should be explicit about what is protected and what isn't. We want to protect the expression of criticism of our government. I don't think we should be making choices about how society functions based off of ambiguous tweet sized one liners. This site your commenting on has higher expectations, maybe our bill of rights should too.

Is advertising really speech? It's ideas with the intent to manipulate people, commercial propaganda. What is speech, maybe we should define that better. It could be the ideas and opinions of individuals. Its a mistake to provide the same protections to a corporation.

There's nuance to speech, the 1st amendment is ambiguous. The intent is protect people, government exists to protect people. The rest of the world is successful without a almost religious devotion to free speech, there's no reason why the us can't, if anything it's detrimental to our society.

[atypicaluser]

> Idk why you picked on the word reasonable. But your proving my point by attempting to shut down the discussion already

I picked 'reasonable' because the word has different connotations depending on the participants, for example, I may believe I'm being reasonable, whereas you may believe I'm being obstinate. And that's just talking about the word 'reasonable.' Toss the question of 'who's being reasonable?' into a heated discussion between opposite sides of a Covid-19 debate, or an immigration debate, or an abortion debate, or an Apple debate, and see where it gets you.

> There's nuance to speech, the 1st amendment is ambiguous.

The FA is anything but ambiguous. 'Congress shall make no law...' That's Ten Commandments territory as far as clarity goes. Speech coupled with action, or with imminent action, or with likely physical harm is where the US Supreme Court has generally allowed lawmakers to go hog-wild. Burning the US flag (political speech,) using racial epithets (hate speech,) publishing graphic pornography (sex speech,) and refusing to testify against one's spouse (silence) have all been green-lit by SCOTUS.

As has propaganda. Why do you suppose the press is given such wide latitude in libel cases against them by public figures[0]? The press can sway public opinion for or against a politician via lie by omission, reliance on alleged anonymous sources, outright lies and later retractions, out-of-context quotes, associating irrelevant stories or images with a politician, interpreting the politician's words, non-reporting, etc. What is this other than outright manipulation (of both facts and people) and propaganda?

We can further discuss the propaganda(s) of national holidays, of political treatises (e.g. Das Kapital,) of American invasions into the Middle East, all of which are seemingly allowed by SCOTUS, but I'll wrap up by sticking to television commercials--why should ASPCA or The Humane Society be allowed to tug at my heartstrings via dogs in cages? Why should the Reverend Franklin Graham be allowed to preach the word of Jesus to me when I've lost a loved one? Why should a PAC be allowed to run ads associating my pick for the US Senate with forest fires, an abhorrent murder or the decisions of another unpopular politician? Should non-profits and tax-exempts be allowed more/better free speech rights than commercial entities when they engage in the same manipulation techniques as those entities?

[0] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

[tayo42]

reasonable was probabaly a bad word choice on my part then, sure we can have unreasonable view points in a a discussion, but even if your not talking from an extreme point of view it gets shut down, people believe free speech is all or nothing, where "all" is ambiguous. There is plenty of middle ground of expression.

I don't know why you think im talking about the first 5 words. Look at the relevant part

> Congress shall make no law ... or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ...

That is all it says, its open to interpretation. Free speech for who, and how is speech defined. What did the they have in mind when they wrote it, it likely wasn't 21st century communication. It is ambiguous. Did they even have businesses in mind? We already not all forms of expression are covered.

Yes all those points you bring up suck about advertising. Why should it be allowed? Why is the news able to be misleading. Why are are we being emotionally manipulated by corporations to buy? Because we can't have a discussion about free speech in America and it nuances. People are so die hard about their right (that doesn't even exist the way they think it does) and fall for slippery slope fallacies. We absolutely should real in advertising, both corporate and political, we should real in manipulative news reporting. None of these freedoms are helping the world, and if anything chipping away at others.

100% Free speech is a detriment to society, it is too idealistic. We can start with these ideals, but the need to figure out how they apply in a world with moral-less actors. We should figure out what we want in regards to forms of expression and content, be clear about it and protect society from entities that want to abuse their rights to take advantage of others.

[atypicaluser]

As this thread has died, I'll leave off with a couple of parting comments--as I previously mentioned, the idea of 'reasonable' will change depending on who you ask. When you say 'We should figure out...,' rather than leave reasonableness to an individual 'I,' now it's given to a multitudinous 'we.' That is, the idea is given a democratic flavor, wherein if a majority (even by just one person) thinks this or that speech act is unreasonable, it can enforce its prohibition.

Given your reasonable fear of manipulation/propaganda by those in power, can you see where this might go wrong?

Thus, as Americans, we've done more or less what you've asked--we laid out the ideal, 'Congress shall make no law...,' then we set our local, state and federal bodies of government on the problem of how to work within this ideal. Which, if the solutions are reasonable, will remain law. Which, if an individual (e.g. a flag burner) or a multitude (e.g. a religious sect) thinks are unreasonable, will be challenged through later legislation or through the courts. Potentially landing at the doorstop of a nine-member group called SCOTUS who, using their collective wisdom, will tell us whether we've (or our bodies of government have) gone too far. (And if we as a nation disagree with their decisions, we as a nation have remedies for that as well.) All in a world of moral-less actors.

Is this not reasonable?