I'm not so sure about that. In many states, if you sell a product, the government can compel you to put speech on your product (such as, for tobacco, giant warnings about addiction.) In my home state, Minnesota, advertising certain products (like adult-themed stores) is banned on highway billboards. If that is legal, you could maybe at least force a giant black-and-white text warning covering up half the side of TV saying, "Warning: Contains non-removable built-in advertising and user behavior tracking features." If you were really nasty, you could force a "sin tax" on the manufacturer for doing so - just charging 10% per product with built-in advertising would quickly end the practice. Treat advertising like tobacco - even that would be a start.
Well first of all tell us how we should read the first amendment. Do we do it based on what the FOUNDING FATHERS believed or what the language of the amendment says, or some other doctrine?
Because if we do it based on what the FOUNDING FATHERS believed, unless you can find a quote where they said the first amendment would apply to advertisements, then we can conclude that the first amendment doesn't apply at all.
> Because if we do it based on what the FOUNDING FATHERS believed, unless you can find a quote where they said the first amendment would apply to advertisements, then we can conclude that the first amendment doesn't apply at all.
A dangerous line of thinking. If we're just going to keep what the Founding Fathers said as the only standard for the First Amendment, then only the Federal government would be bound by it. States could could still pass their own laws that punish the exercise of individual rights, free speech included.
I agree that sticking to what the founding father's said will greatly roll back civil rights, but this is what conservatives frequently claim they want to do.
Curiously, conservatives say this is more democratic since people will get to vote on anything they want without judges getting in the way, even though there's no right to vote in the constitution.
> Because if we do it based on what the FOUNDING FATHERS believed, unless you can find a quote where they said the first amendment would apply to advertisements, then we can conclude that the first amendment doesn't apply at all.
That's an unreasonable view. The First Amendment says nothing about text on computers or lyrics in music being protected speech, yet we accept that they are and the Supreme Court agrees.
I think you mean "certain Supreme Courts in certain time periods agree..." The 1942 Supreme Court said in Valentine v. Chrestensen commercial speech isn't protected by the first amendment at all.
