[randrews]

Yep. The answer here is that Hulu should probably run the ads. Free speech is more than an amendment, it's a social value that should be respected by everyone, not just the government. I'm sure I'd disagree with every one of these ads but I would still like to see them run, because allowing people I don't like to speak is what protects MY right to speak.

[fritztastic]

I disagree. I don't think ads are the same as individual people being able to express themselves, and having one conpany reject political ads isn't preventing the politicians from expressing themselves altogether. Hulu also has discretion to choose which ads to air. Undoubtedly there are a great number of submissions, I'm sure not all of them make the cut for various reasons. What criteria should they use? Highest paying ads? Extending ad time to ensure all ads submitted can air? What if someone submitted an ad supporting ISIS or other extremist speech?

Should a business be forced to air content they don't want to be associated with or perceived as endorsing? It has already been established companies are not obligated to do business they find violate their 1A rights, so this would seem to fit into that precedent.

Moreover politicians aren't being silenced, there are a vast number of different avenues they can (and do) use to spread their campaign information.

If it's campaign ads being more equitably presented, there are a number of ways to approach this that don't involve forcing a private business to accept any and all ad content.

[verdverm]

Should we allow cigarette ads again? Where's the limit?

Maybe we will decide these types of ads are too poisonous for society to tolerate

[smt88]

> Should we allow cigarette ads again? Where's the limit?

Cigarette ads are totally irrelevant to this controversy.

Cigarettes are a non-ideological, commercial product without any therapeutic uses. We can suppress all mention of them from the media, and we would be in no danger of death, tyranny, etc. In fact, there would be far fewer deaths, as we've seen in the last few decades.

Suppressing political ads does carry the risk of death and tyranny. The whole reason people are worried about the erosion of free speech is that suppression of potentially valid ideologies is extremely dangerous.

[randrews]

I actually think we should allow cigarette ads again, I don't think anyone is harmed by being able to see a sign telling them something.

But also, think about it this way: isn't this the other side of the slippery slope argument? I'm sure when cigarette ads were first banned, people made the argument that it would be used to justify banning other ads later, and were told that was a slippery slope fallacy... Now, you're essentially saying "we've already banned cigarette ads, if we're not going to ban gun ads too then we might as well re-allow cigarette ads!"

[verdverm]

That's not what I am saying. I'm saying that society has deemed the cigarette ads (in the US) to be something we don't want. The ad types in this thread seem to be going the same way, and hopefully pharma ads will follow later.

The first amendment does not compel speech or publication thereof.

[randrews]

Ads in general are probably something society doesn't want, because you have to pay people (in the form of ad-supported content) to look at them. You might say that most people in society think cigarette or gun ads (or DNC political spots) are particularly objectionable. But, I don't believe that that's a reason to ban them.

I'm completely in agreement that the law doesn't compel speech, or publication, especially of ads. Hulu is completely legally in the right to not carry DNC ads, Google and Facebook are completely legally in the right not to carry Colt or Remington ads. They'd also be in the right not to carry Altria ads. But the question is what speech do we want to ban by law... and I think the only answer to that for a healthy, free society is "none."

I even go further and say that respecting free speech exists outside the first amendment as a societal value that we should all hold, like "politeness" and "honesty," and that it should be kept even when not legally required... So Hulu _should_ run the ads, even though they are not _required_ to.

[verdverm]

You can believe what you want, we tolerate flat earthers too

> I think the only answer to that for a healthy, free society is "none."

This is not true or healthy in the internet age where speech can reach all of humanity in seconds and we are plagued by bad actors without the ability to easily rein them in. Telling people to do their own research or be safe does not scale and the negative externalities end up costing society more.

A company or platform that wants to allow unfettered speech is free to compete with those who filter & curate. We can then see without doubt which society prefers

[randrews]

Hmm. So the way I interpret this is: true free speech lets people say things that are wrong, and leads to people believing things that are wrong. A company that allows it will perform worse in a market because of people believing those wrong things. An analogous thing would happen to a society allowing it, so, to have our society be stronger economically, we should have limits on speech. Is that close to right?

If so, my argument is this: a company and a country have different goals. Many things that a country might provide (welfare programs, democracy, public services) are expenses that don't make us economically stronger. But, we do anyway because that's not the point of a country: the point is to provide the best quality of life for citizens. I'm happy to accept the drawbacks of free speech (people believing in Q, or that the Apollo landings were faked) in exchange for being able to say whatever I want. If you aren't, then there are other countries that make the other tradeoff.

I think this is the core of what's going to be a big debate over the next decade or two, though: is it better to be less productive and free (America), or more efficient but authoritarian (China)?