I wouldn't disagree that this sounds like "legal opportunism" at its worst.

But at one point it touches on an area that I don't think gets enough scrutiny: Advertising. Particularly advertising directed at kids.

The usual defense is that advertising is protected free speech(though "commercial speech" from "synthetic people" like corporations might be challenged on Consitutional grounds). But if you look at the technology involved, the applied psychology and practical manipulation developed over the decades after billions of dollars in research, I think it goes beyond simple speech. Sure people can make conscious choices about things like diet--but does the use of advertising that deliberately bypasses conscious rational thought to play a tune on the subconscious and emotions deprive people of their right to choose? Does advertising have the power to coerce people--especially kids--to do things they wouldn't otherwise do?

My best defense against advertising is to consciously study it to try and figure out how it works. The results can be pretty scary, especially in TV advertising. There's the flash-cut technique that stroboscopically sends powerful signals down your optic nerve. There's the use of symbols, especially sexual symbols; not just obvious T&A, but phallic shapes, or breast-like curves that appeal to both sexes (as has long been known through cognitive research). Music and sound effects that carry messages that are by definition sub-conscious because our conscious focus is visual. Clever words that don't actually mean what you think if you're given the chance to parse them; and bombardment with distractions to make it difficult to stop and analyze the words you just heard. Deliberate sensory overload (the yin to the yang of sensory deprivation).

If somebody kidnapped you and locked you in a room and bombarded you with propaganda for weeks, until you gave in and converted to their point of view, would it be just free speech? No, it would be decidely unfree--it would be coercive speech. Is advertising coercive speech?

--Robert