Re:If You're Poor in America, You Can Be Both Overweight and...
by bancars on Wednesday July 17, 2019 @01:10PM
(#20461695)
The first amendment only covers political speech. The government can and does censor things like profanity and pornography (there’s a reason why you can’t say “fuck” on the radio). Advertising isn’t political speech and wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) be protected. Considering that advertising is basically psychological manipulation to get you to buy products, especially products which directly prey on your lizard brain things like hunger, I see no reason not to censor junk food advertisements. It worked with cigarettes.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:If You're Poor in America, You Can Be Both Overweight and...
by jMyles on Wednesday July 17, 2019 @01:16PM
(#20461780)
> The first amendment only covers political speech.
This opinion terrifies me. I'm grateful that so few people, including those in a position to decide on government restraint (ie, SCOTUS, etc), agree with you.
In your ideal world (where the text of the 1st amendment is interpreted as you propose), how do you prevent the government from simply labeling any speech it doesn't like as "non-political" and then censoring it?
Re:If You're Poor in America, You Can Be Both Overweight and...
by qntty on Wednesday July 17, 2019 @01:15PM
(#20461757)
Not true, the first amendment is about more than political speech. See this article for a little of the history of free speech:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/two-con...
[Note in particular: After all, the genius of the First Amendment lies in bringing isegoria and parrhesia together, by securing the equal right and liberty of citizens not simply to “exercise their reason” but to speak their minds.]