Earlier quoted context omitted.
> still allow That's the thing: the idea that one must be allowed . No; you publish it, and the most the government can do is stop you from repeating it and punish you for having done so. Note that I'm not defending the US system as perfect, or even necessarily good in all places and at all times. But it is a system that has benefits.
> No; you publish it, and the most the government can do is stop you from repeating it and punish you for having done so. Soooo.... if I approach a US tv network with an ad that explicitly shows naked people doing cocaine, and carries the message that drugs are amazing, and ask for it to be scheduled during the kids tv peak slot, the networks are going to say "Hey, cool, yeah we'll do that"? This seems very unlikely…
But that is still missing the point. I said that the US way isn’t all downsides. Curiosly enough, I haven’t seen a reply (but I might miss some downstream) that acknowledges this. I’m not a moron. The US way isn’t the most perfect bestest ever with no faults. If you want to argue that there is nothing redeeming about the First Amendment, then do so. But unless you are prepared to do that, don’t act like it has no benefits.