[BostonCard]

This story is from the UK, but my experience watching even a college sports event is not that much different.  Advertising for gambling is rampant.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/202...dium=email

Anyone watching the match live on TV, even if they were too young to bet legally, could see 30 gambling messages per broadcast minute of this game.

(not sure how they measured the number of gambling messages).

We have strong first amendment protections in the US, so it may be hard to limit or regulate advertising for a legal activity.  But there have been limits to what tobacco companies can advertise (they can't: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/pro...-promotion).  The rationale is that narrowly tailored restrictions that advance a substantial interest in curtailing free speech is allowed:

https://journals.law.unc.edu/firstamendm...tisements/

I'd be curious amongst those who know more than I do about free speech whether limiting sports marketing would meet the Hudson test:

1. The speech must concern lawful activity and not be misleading
   
2. The government must have a substantial interest in regulating the speech
   
3. The regulation must directly and materially advance the government’s substantial interest
   
4. The regulation must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest
   

For tobacco, the government's interest is clear, since as the funder of Medicare and Medicaid it has a clear interest in keeping the population healthy, including curtailment of tobacco.  Are the health effects of gambling addiction enough to meet this test?  Are there other substantial government interests?

BC

[BostonCard]

This story is from the UK, but my experience watching even a college sports event is not that much different.  Advertising for gambling is rampant.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/202...dium=email

Anyone watching the match live on TV, even if they were too young to bet legally, could see 30 gambling messages per broadcast minute of this game.

(not sure how they measured the number of gambling messages).

We have strong first amendment protections in the US, so it may be hard to limit or regulate advertising for a legal activity.  But there have been limits to what tobacco companies can advertise (they can't: https://www.fda.gov/tobacco-products/pro...-promotion).  The rationale is that narrowly tailored restrictions that advance a substantial interest in curtailing free speech is allowed:

https://journals.law.unc.edu/firstamendm...tisements/

I'd be curious amongst those who know more than I do about free speech whether limiting sports marketing would meet the Hudson test:

1. The speech must concern lawful activity and not be misleading
   
2. The government must have a substantial interest in regulating the speech
   
3. The regulation must directly and materially advance the government’s substantial interest
   
4. The regulation must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest
   

For tobacco, the government's interest is clear, since as the funder of Medicare and Medicaid it has a clear interest in keeping the population healthy, including curtailment of tobacco.  Are the health effects of gambling addiction enough to meet this test?  Are there other substantial government interests?

BC