For one thing, such restrictions are unlikely to pass constitutional muster: Pharmaceutical advertising has been
deemed protected speech in a string of court rulings.
Not exact matches
Republicans always through this into faces of any liberal they
deem has gone to far in public discourse: «Freedom of
Speech is
protected speech, but anything you say will have consequences — sometimes unfavorable consequences.»
The US Senate has passed a bill against «libel tourism», essentially barring the enforcement of defamation judgments from places that the US
deems to
protect free
speech insufficiently.
I can easily see the intentional infliction of emotional distress through invasion of privacy being
deemed to be not
protected speech.