Even if the majority of citizens agreed that forcing their morality on the minority is the right thing to do I still disagree because individual freedom is more important than majority opinion.
this read suspiciously like a stereotypical US opinion regarding individual rights vs rights of the majority.
so i went and looked through your comment history and i now i suspect even more strongly that you are US based.
> Its because I don't want the government, people who I've never met in person and honestly are not the most moral of individuals, making moral decisions for my children on my behalf.
it’s not your government doing this. you can relax.
also, we in the UK value the balance between individual rights and collective societal rights more strongly than you do. it’s our thing. if you don’t like it, it doesnt matter, you don’t live here.
worry about that when it comes around pal. you’re just wasting energy right now spreading FUD.
what im basically saying here is, yes, you’re entitled to have an opinion.
but i’m also entitled to have an opinion that your opinion is meaningless and irrelevant to the subject at hand.
which is what i am expressing.
I'm allowed to say that right, you won't attack me for having an opinion?
Good. Majorities shouldn't be able to steamroller minorities.
isn't this also the place where you can go to jail for what you say online? orwell's probably rolling in his grave somewhere in London
Infinite individual freedom doesn't exist, it stops where others' individual freedom starts.
What defines harm? Or more specifically, who?
But without the law, they are doing the moral decision of allowing the hurtful ads. There's no neutral state. The government has to pick a side anyway. So let's pick the side favorable to the citizens?
> individual freedom is more important than majority opinion
Isn't this a contradiction? If the majority wants something, you are hurting the individual freedom of the greatest number of people.
The idea of the government 'picking a side' is problematic because it assumes a one-size-fits-all solution that may not align with everyone's values. Allowing ads isn't endorsing them; it's respecting freedom of speech and trusting individuals to make their own choices. Once the government starts deciding which speech is acceptable, it opens the door for abuse and subjective enforcement, which can harm citizens more than it helps.
The free market should decide whether they want to be exposed to ads or not by voting with their dollars. If an ad campaign doesn't produce the results a company wants they pull the ads and try something else.
> Isn't this a contradiction? If the majority wants something, you are hurting the individual freedom of the greatest number of people.
Individual freedom means the freedom to do, say, or think whatever you please as long as you don't harm another or their property. The will of the majority to force the minority to behave a certain way is not freedom. The majority is free to act however they want as long as it doesn't harm others but they shouldn't be allowed to force others to behave a certain way.
Majority opinion can lead to tyranny if it infringes on the rights of individuals. History offers countless examples of majorities oppressing minorities. The role of a just society is to protect each person's right to life, liberty, and property, even when the majority disagrees.
The focus should be on safeguarding universal rights rather than catering to the fluctuating preferences of a majority.
In the longer term, stuff that enters your brain as a child shapes you and lasts long. See how well how many people in their 30s remember ads of their childhood.
Why would someone defend such ads anyway? I don't believe they achieve anything good for anyone except the advertiser.