Thanks for this link, it was a great read - and compelling.

>I think banning online advertising

So you want to limit speech in the name of protecting free speech?

Limiting corporate speech in the name of protecting individual speech seems like a reasonable proposal to me.

Corporations aren't the only ones that advertise. Completely eliminating advertising would restrict speech for both corporations and individuals.

Maybe I want to create a charity and am looking to raise awareness for a fundraising event I am having.

Maybe my dog ran away and I want to get the word out about a monetary reward I am offering for helping to find them.

Maybe I am a touring comedian and I want to advertise my next show.

Maybe I am an amateur photographer and want volunteer subjects to help hone my craft.

The list goes on and on for potential non-corporate uses of advertising. If we want to treat corporate speech and individual speech differently, I think there is a much more important place to start: Citizens United v. FEC.

In all of those cases you can just say what you want to say, you don't need to pay for special treatment to put your message in front of an unwilling audience. Restricting advertising isn't restricting speech, it's restricting the ability to pay for special treatment for your own speech.

> Restricting advertising isn't restricting speech, it's restricting the ability to pay for special treatment for your own speech.

That isn't the way it works in the US. There are some restrictions on advertising, but is fundamentally protected speech in the US and therefore can't be banned outright.

Limiting corporate speech seems quite a nice fix to the problem of corporations limiting individual speech

Don't worry, it's only other people's speech.