[SonicScrub]

> The problem with this is that it runs into free speech issues.

No it absolutely does not. Rules and regulations on advertising including what can be advertised, how it's advertised, who it can be targeted to, and the medium in which it can be advertised in are already strictly regulated in the US, Canada, and Europe.

[amalcon]

Yes, it absolutely does. That competing interests sometimes prevail does not eliminate this particular interest as an issue. Also worth noting that I was appealing to cultural significance rather than legal significance for a reason.

[SonicScrub]

"Commerical speech" in the US and is subject to much stricter limitations than things like political speech. The government is allowed to restrict advertising to fulfill it's governance aims, provided those aims are narrowly defined and specific. Incidentally, the specific case of barring Casinos from advertising has legal precedent. So no, gambling ads cannot be argued to be under the protection of the first amendment.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/commercial-speech/

Edit: sorry, just saw your note about cultural significance. Not legal, so perhaps the legal argument will ring hollow.

But to address it from a cultural perspective, note that there is a long history of restricting advertising speech for public good. Doing so is not out of line culturally with what we do across thousands of different industries. It would be an extension of the status quo. Not an upheaval in our relationship to free speech