What about the (large, I would argue) slice of parents who want to let their kids watch TV but don't want them bombarded with ads for sugar-saturated foods?

(I mean, we're on HN, so the obvious answer is watching things on a laptop / projector with Firefox + uBlock Origin, but y'know - everyone else).

Those parents need to find solutions that don't involve forcing their morality on others. Thats how we get xenophobic and homophobic people voting to control women's bodies because they think others should do whatever they believe is moral and right.

> Those parents need to find solutions that don't involve forcing their morality on others

I believe forbidding these ads is morally good, but it's not just morality. It's knowledge backed by studies:

- children are easily influenced

- burgers cause public health issues that harm the individuals, and cost greatly to the society in healthcare

It's not a stance like "I believe women should not abort because God" (to take your example). It's a law aiming to reduce costs and and improve public health.

This laws doesn't prevent parents from speaking about burgers to their children, and doesn't prevent TV from speaking about them neither. It's not a freedom of speech issue.

There's an imbalance between the power of the big corporations and the power of the individuals and this law pushes the needle a bit towards the individuals. You the individual freedom defender should be happy with this :-)

Although I never made an argument regarding free speech we can say that this does prevent free speech because it prevents companies from speaking about their products through advertisements. Remember that business owners are people too. Often times they're citizens of the countries in which they're doing business.

I think most people tend to forget that and view companies as soulless abstract entities. In the US 99.9% (99.8% in the UK) of businesses are small businesses run by very few individuals who are just trying to make ends meet. If you remove the ability to advertise these products it doesn't hurt the big companies. They're established and have recognizable brands. But small businesses can't afford to lose their main way of finding customers. Eventually, they go out of business. This only helps the large corporations become even larger.

> There's an imbalance between the power of the big corporations and the power of the individuals...

Where is the imbalance of power in the scenario of burgers being advertised? All advertisement is designed to persuade the viewer to purchase the product or service. Marketing is a normal part of running a business. Children may be influenced by the commercials but so are adults. Should we ban all advertising now?

> - burgers cause public health issues that harm the individuals, and cost greatly to the society in healthcare

While burgers may not be the healthiest food, if you're a low income individual who can't access more expensive, healthier foods, burgers are nutrient and calorically rich and they're cheap.

A burger to someone living below the poverty line without access to food is a life saver. Its all about context and perspective.

Case in point for why socialized medicine leads to government overreach in many other facets of our lives.

Milton Friedman had a great point during this talk [1], same argument from 50 years ago.

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWIrbS0dXRM

I'm the same. My children are practically never exposed to these ads. But, all their peers are.

My kids have never had any fast food, and have never seen an ad, but they talk about KFC and McDonald's constantly. It all comes from their friends at school.