Should I be allowed to express myself by firing bullets into the air?

Is it abridging my free speech when the city I live in bans billboards? I can no long speak by building a billboard on my land.

I can post/view short videos to Instagram, Snapchat, Pinterest, among others. I don't see how any one platform embodies my ability to speak.

I am not sure. Billboards are mostly used for ads, so that seems less relevant from a freedom of speech view. But if billboards were systematically used to share political ideas and criticize the government, and as a response the government decided to ban them, that may be an issue.

It is also notable that the other firms you mention are American, and thus may embody a certain viewpoint and culture.

I picked some that are popular in the US because they're alternatives to TikTok.

I find it hard to believe that a single medium like billboards or an app like TikTok is such a unique thing that it's a burden on people to communicate without them.

I see your point. But I do not think the burden to use alternatives matter - the fact is that people are using tiktok to express themselves in a protected manner, which means that restricting it is a free speech issue. Further, the tools and moderation policies of tiktok are different enough that there may not be a viable alternative to discuss certain ideas in certain ways.

Otherwise, one might argue that the government can ban specific newspapers as there are other newspapers where journalists can publish, or that the government can cab paper newspapers since people can publish online.

Remove emotional bait from the conversation and it makes even more sense:

Can the government ban harmful foreign products?

> Is it abridging my free speech when the city I live in bans billboards?

I think so. That is something that is actively being discussed. One could make the argument for that and bring it to court.

Why are you okay with the government preventing you from putting a sign up on your property?

I don't really care about billboards, but they are already banned by states and municipalities.

> I don't really care

That tracks.

> they are already banned by states and municipalities.

Which means nothing to your argument in support of the government denying you your first amendment rights.

I've actually gotten a decent number of responses and yours is the only insult so far. Not too shabby for the internet.

The law is heavily based on precedent. Seems like a big difference between speech and a specific communication mechanism.

If you offer what you care about as a subject for discussion (when nobody asked), you can't play the victim when people acknowledge it.

> yours is the only insult so far

What insult?

> The law is heavily based on precedent.

Yes, and that precedent is on my side.

You admit your ignorance, but when people who aren't ignorant contradict your assertions, you double down on your ignorance and consistently move the goal posts.

At the end of the day, you are arguing in support of violations of the first amendment. If you find that declaration insulting, reevaluate why you insist your ignorance is the right approach.

I take it you’re not really one for HOAs.

Correct.

That being said, I'm also open to other people giving up that right and signing onto an HOA.

However, you have to have that right in the first place to give it up.