Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
I get the populist sentiment, but 'advertising' is just another word for 'speech.' aka, should be maximally protected under the 1st amendment. If it's not: obscene, fraud, defamatory, there is little mandate for the state to be involved. It's silly to create laws that are unenforceable on an internet without borders. Furthermore, the wackjob types aren't restricted to spread woowoo, so you're just setting up asymmetric info warfare against any industry that is already hamstrung with regulatory hurdles to climb. https://x.com/AndrewYang/status/1857212114097836526
3 replies
1 recast
3 reactions
keccers
@keccers.eth
You ban Pharma ads because it is in the interest of public health. In this argument Banning pharma ads directly advance a govt interest and so we can except. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp078080#:~:text=The%20courts%20view%20advertising%20as,the%201975%20case%20Bigelow%20v This is where RFK and the woo woo army get it twisted tbh They go out and are all like “oh Pharma funds the fake and woke liberal propaganda media that lies to you and keeps you sick!! Big Pharma pays for the view!! Cannot have it” but that to your point is a free speech argument and unfortunately for us all there is like, endless tape all over of them saying it like this lol
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
Daniel Fernandes
@dfern.eth
Great find! The modifier to the Central Hudson test mentioned..."the government's interest could be advanced through a less restrictive route, such as by adding a special label"...sounds like what a pharma ad ban would hinge on. Those forced disclaimers of side effects seem like that middle ground... Aside from that, I feel if we banned pharma ads they would just be replaced with 24/7 DraftKings 🤢
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
