[wskish]

Amplified messaging from corporations is not the same as the free speech of individuals. Just as we disallow advertising for cigarettes and hard liquor on TV, a democratic society should be free to select other classes of messages that corporations are not permitted to amplify into public spaces.

[twoodfin]

Hard liquor ads are all over (e.g.) broadcasts of NFL games.

Cigarette advertising “bans” are not legislated, IIRC, but a result of the various consolidated settlements of the 1990s-era lawsuits against the tobacco companies. They’re essentially voluntary, and it’s not obvious that a genuine ban would survive constitutional scrutiny. It might: Commercial speech is among the least protected forms of speech.

But at some point a line is crossed: Painting “Read the New York Times” on the side of a barn you own is bread & butter freedom of expression.

[const_cast]

> But at some point a line is crossed: Painting “Read the New York Times” on the side of a barn you own is bread & butter freedom of expression.

Okay, then don't make that illegal.

I don't understand this mentality of "everything is the same as everything else so we can't do anything".

Sure, it's all just scale. But scale matters. Scale is why I can do a science experiment at home and it's cool, but I can't make a nuclear warhead. Seems for just about everything we've been able to find that line and work around it. This "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" approach to society is toxic, and we need to stop.

[TomasBM]

Outside the US (e.g., Europe), advertising bans for tobacco and liquor can work quite well.

Sure, there will always be bad cases and loopholes - even bans on murder don't work 100% - but there's a reason "bans" are still a viable mechanism.