So you fundamentally agree that if we have social consensus, it’s totally OK to prevent the spread of ideas or messages (“speech”) as we have done with cigarettes? That was my entire question, to the folks who argue that there is never ever a reason to restrict speech.
I too think that we should address underlying issues, but if there’s a lot at stake: why not both?
I think banning tobacco ads is not the same situation because the entities behind them are corporations. The corporations mislead the public for decades in order to get people addicted, purely for profit. The public harm done was a negative externality of their business model. I'm in favor of regulating corporations. (I don't think there should be any advertising, anyway)
If we're talking about banning speech that is critical about a medical intervention, or even banning ideas that disagree with a social consensus, that's different territory. Doctors and others aren't speaking out because they want to mislead the public, or in order to profit.
> if there’s a lot at stake: why not both?
Well, I've seen no indication that we're dealing with underlying issues. For instance, if you truly want to restore trust in institutions, it's counterproductive to shut down public discussions that are critical of those institutions...
I too think that we should address underlying issues, but if there’s a lot at stake: why not both?