[rockskon]

Gambling vs advertising gambling are two different things.

Equating them as exactly the same doesn't serve your argument justice even if you do have a point with respect to the OP's "have their cake and eat it too" rhetorical flourish.

[rufus_foreman]

If you want to restrict advertising on gambling you want to restrict individual liberty.

I want to restrict individual liberty.

Do you want to restrict advertising on gambling?

[virtue3]

Advertising isn’t “individual liberty” — it’s paid psychological manipulation.

Banning gambling ads isn’t banning gambling. It’s just stopping corporations from pushing addictive behavior on people who didn’t consent to see it.

We banned cigarette ads for the same reason — harm and addiction.

Limiting corporate ad power protects individual liberty. I can choose to gamble if I want, but I shouldn’t have to fight off brainwashing every time I watch a game.

[Terr_]

It's both liberty and manipulation, simultaneously.

I don't think we can build anything good in the long run if we imagine there's a clear and obvious line between them.

[nine_k]

To ban gambling would be to limit individual liberty (see also: smoking tobacco, drinking alcohol, self-harm, suicide).

To ban advertising of gambling is to limit a liberty too, but the kind that substantially affects others. See also: dumping a bucketful of water on a passer-by, smoking in a crowded subway car, blaring super loud music outside at night time.

That second kind of liberty is and will always be limited in a society, voluntarily most of the time, because people want to be good neighbors, not harm each other.

Another problem here is the addiction. Advertising applesauce is one thing, advertising cocaine is another. For some people, gambling is more like cocaine, hampering their reason and forcing their hand in making choices. The freedom to advertise cocaine (and tobacco, alcohol, etc) inevitably gets limited in a society; if it does not, the society likely unravels.

[mlrtime]

Serious question, is everything black/white to you?

Extreme example: I don't have individual liberty to murder or take things that aren't mine. So I'm ok with giving up at least 1 or 2 individual liberties. How many is enough, and who decides?

Or do we all just decide and that is the point of voting, not sure what you're trying to say.