This is a brilliant idea, however there are a few problems. The first is that for better or worse, you could bring down a lot of services, businesses, content creators (i.e. YouTube) and most likely a great many people will lose their job.

The second problem is, this is probably not going to fly against freedom of speech, because it's effectively censorship of a certain kind. And if it does pass, what could be the next flavor of communication to be outlawed? Maybe it's not something you're going to like.

I much prefer blocking ads (which I've come to be incredibly effective at), and still have the law allow people to advertise. And I hate ads with a passion! But the alternative could be worse.

So you start a t-shirt business online, and you can only advertise in those places instead of Instagram? Seems bad for the business.

Would be very profitable for tv stations, though! And we'd see a ton more billboards covering everything.

Well, in that case, I would just say that my law only applies to Publicly traded companies.

That would cover all the Apples, Samsungs, Rokus, and so forth of the world which is what we care about most, I think.

Since you're already making carve outs, here's $100,000 for your reelection campaign if you exclude Apple, too.

Ethical marketing is a hard problem to solve, I don't think the best solution is focusing on where it happens, instead it should be focused on how it's happening (targeting) and what the content is.

So if a publicly traded company wants to advertise on TV they either have to find a TV station that will run their ad for free or they have to buy a TV station, because of the requirement that no money change hands for the ad?

How do you tell if something is advertising? Is a sportsperson wearing a brand because they like it or because they're being paid to wear it?

Highway ads are bad because they distract drivers. Some states like AK and VT have banned billboard already.

I think we would have to change the 1st Amendment to make this type of law constitutional.

Let's also ban professions in advertising.

I mean, we did it for prostitution, so it could work?

Wouldn’t it be better to enumerate what’s prohibited rather than what’s allowed?

Highway ads are a public safety risk and should be banned, IMO

Also just about any type of advertisement stimulates overconsumption.

Banning ads right now seems like a sensible thing to do if we want to reach climate goals.

good. let's run some ads to pass that law

I'm not so sure about that. In many states, if you sell a product, the government can compel you to put speech on your product (such as, for tobacco, giant warnings about addiction.) In my home state, Minnesota, advertising certain products (like adult-themed stores) is banned on highway billboards. If that is legal, you could maybe at least force a giant black-and-white text warning covering up half the side of TV saying, "Warning: Contains non-removable built-in advertising and user behavior tracking features." If you were really nasty, you could force a "sin tax" on the manufacturer for doing so - just charging 10% per product with built-in advertising would quickly end the practice. Treat advertising like tobacco - even that would be a start.

Treating advertisements like tobacco would mean giving the FDA control over what people and read. Definitely a First Amendment problem.

Well first of all tell us how we should read the first amendment. Do we do it based on what the FOUNDING FATHERS believed or what the language of the amendment says, or some other doctrine?

Because if we do it based on what the FOUNDING FATHERS believed, unless you can find a quote where they said the first amendment would apply to advertisements, then we can conclude that the first amendment doesn't apply at all.

> Because if we do it based on what the FOUNDING FATHERS believed, unless you can find a quote where they said the first amendment would apply to advertisements, then we can conclude that the first amendment doesn't apply at all.

A dangerous line of thinking. If we're just going to keep what the Founding Fathers said as the only standard for the First Amendment, then only the Federal government would be bound by it. States could could still pass their own laws that punish the exercise of individual rights, free speech included.

https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases

I agree that sticking to what the founding father's said will greatly roll back civil rights, but this is what conservatives frequently claim they want to do.

Curiously, conservatives say this is more democratic since people will get to vote on anything they want without judges getting in the way, even though there's no right to vote in the constitution.

> Because if we do it based on what the FOUNDING FATHERS believed, unless you can find a quote where they said the first amendment would apply to advertisements, then we can conclude that the first amendment doesn't apply at all.

That's an unreasonable view. The First Amendment says nothing about text on computers or lyrics in music being protected speech, yet we accept that they are and the Supreme Court agrees.

I think you mean "certain Supreme Courts in certain time periods agree..." The 1942 Supreme Court said in Valentine v. Chrestensen commercial speech isn't protected by the first amendment at all.