Cigarettes and prescription drugs may not be advertised in the UK.
I also don't know how to get there constitutionally without somehow differentiating advertising from speech (the Court has declined every opportunity, which should be obvious from the term of art "commercial speech") or relitigating Central Hudson. I also don't know whether yielding on the Constitution in cases like these compromises my values. See where I'm coming from? All it takes is one case of ignoring the First or Fourteenth in particular and getting away with establishing some bad precedent. That's a future that would concern me greatly.
I've seen some folks arguing for jailing fake news authors here on HN. Ignoring parts of our Constitution feels good to think about in order to address a squeaky wheel. The ramifications of where that steers the whole cart over potentially decades must be carefully studied, however, some amendments far more than others (the First being one of those).
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posadas_de_Puerto_Rico_Associa... (I don't really know US constitutional law, but this is linked on wikipedia!) - arguing that advertising can be restricted in the US under some circumstances.
(The extent of US TV censorship should also be considered here, along with the great "community standards" fight over internet censorship way back in the Clinton era)
Even the constitution does not consider itself infallible, or it would not include instructions for its amendment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_Sta...
That said, forbidding advertising of meat is obviously an extreme proposal, not least because of things like this:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/aug/05/synthetic-me...
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/06/21/482322571/sil...
To be honest, there are probably many Americans who are less attached to maintaining America's legal foundation - and would accept the laws of any other free society - than they are to taking action against climate change. I don't mean this to say to "throw out the constitution", and I agree we shouldn't remove things that grant us stability.. But what does even the totality of the rule of law mean in the face of the laws of physics?
To be fair I probably derailed the thread from the topic of advertising's nonexemption from 1st Amendment protection..
a) agree with you and GP (though perhaps not to such a dramatic end), and
b) slap on the brakes when discussing constitutionally perilous endeavors that could ultimately harm us more than this discussion can forecast; what else can I forbid or do in the name of existential issues?
That I'm in the apparent minority here based on voting is far more alarming than I'd like it to be. Am I being interpreted as pro meat or something and riling the vegetarians? When I see the words "forbid" and "advertising" next to each other in such proximity I'm compelled to point out it's a bad idea. How am I the only one on this side? I'm all for evolving the Constitution, but fiddling with the First is not where I'd start and suppressing meat advertising has the potential to become much worse. That's my only point and I cannot express to you how alarmed I am that it's controversial.
If you're coming at me this hard that the First Amendment is malleable enough to save us from perceived world doom by forgetting it when it's convenient, let's turn around and have a conversation about the Second, then, shall we? Two can play that game. Either the Constitution is infallible or it isn't. Tell me which it is and I'll debate accordingly.