[DavidAdams]

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]

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]

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]

Advertisement is now "free speech"? That's an "interesting interpretation" to say the least.