It's a pipe dream; but advertising/lobbying deserves regulatory hurdles much like other public health threats (e.g. tobacco). And before anyone shouts "freedom of speech" - we already do that extensively for stuff like fraud, libel, and incitement to violence/terrorism, so this isn't really anything particularly new.
It's simply detrimental to the overall ability for us to think.
> And before anyone shouts "freedom of speech" - we already do that extensively for stuff like fraud, libel, and incitement to violence/terrorism, so this isn't really anything particularly new.
So the slippery slope people were right after all.
Freedom of speech isn't a blanket "call it speech and you can now do it unrestricted" rule. It is the freedom to communicate with interested parties about the matters of your choosing. It is not supposed to be a freedom to perform mass campaigns of dishonesty in economic or political domains.
Sure they could, but it's not the definition of speech that needs to be fixed, it's the definition of "dishonesty campaign."
And there, the problem is not about speech, but identity-protection for the religious. One person's lies are "protected tradition" while another person's lies are "dangerous fake news."
Yeah. You clearly intend for this newfangled freedom of speech thing to protect critical commentary, avoid repression and promote the exchange of valuable ideas; and all of the sudden people apply it in all kinds of nonsensical counterproductive ways.
Slippery slope and all...
Unless of course you really think that protecting the rich & powerful's ability to mislead and trick others is really a societal benefit.
It's simply detrimental to the overall ability for us to think.