Hacker News Reader

Comment by copsarebastards | Hacker News Reader

Why is this a negotiation? We don't have to have passive ads to get rid of active ads, we can get rid of both.

Advertisers never asked before barging obnoxiously into our collective consciousness. We don't need to pre-emptively make concessions.

View on HN

Consider what it would actually mean to ban billboards. If they were on government-owned land near a highway, placed at the pleasure of the city or state, then sure, they can (and should) decide to retract that permission; no issue there. On the other hand, if they're on private land, then this suggests that a local government can ban you from posting a sign on your own property that's visible to others. Where does that stop, and on what basis could it occur at all?

Within cities, I've seen signs posted on the sides of buildings, presumably with the full permission of the building owner, because the building happened to provide a convenient space visible to a fair bit of roadway. In residential areas, I've seen people post large signs on the sides or roofs of their houses, easily visible to the road. And that leaves aside the numerous small picket or A-frame signs placed in non-highway areas, again on private property: houses for sale, garage sales, lost pets, etc.

As much as I hate advertising, how exactly would you reconcile such a ban with the first amendment in the US?

With the long-standing understanding that commercial speech is not protected to the same degree as non-commercial speech.

That's a horrible precedent. Most noncommercial advertising is popitical advertising, which is funded by the special interests who will commercially profit from the advertised politicians.

> As much as I hate advertising, how exactly would you reconcile such a ban with the first amendment in the US?

This is a solved problem; SCOTUS has already ruled on various aspects of this[1].

[1] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/billboards

The U.S. Supreme Court reconciles it by allowing "time, place, and manner" restrictions.

There are many times, places and manners available to speak, other than billboards.

In the city I live they just have a maximum sign size. I forget how big it is, but billboards are definitely not allowed.

>As much as I hate advertising, how exactly would you reconcile such a ban with the first amendment in the US?

This article has a nice explanation about that: http://nsglc.olemiss.edu/SandBar/SandBar5/5.2advertising.htm

Fine by me, but if there does end up being policy, it won't be blanket policy.

Probably just being pragmatic. The passive ones have been around so long that they will be harder to remove.

I call BS on the ground that things being around longer doesn't necessarily make them harder to remove.

At a minimum it takes $20 worth of paint and an hour to make a passive billboard less obnoxious. This objection is silly.

I bet people would volunteer to do it. :)

My guess is that he more means that they have become entrenched in everyday life and that somehow that will make them harder to get rid of. It's always been this way ...

He also means that not all outdoor advertising is actually a problem. some of it's pleasing some of it is acceptable some of its aesthetic....

Can't say the same for the active ones

Ugh, the act isn't difficult. I mean passing the law in the first place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com