I find it very worrisome that the government views online anonymous postings on a private website as advertisement to be enforced by public agencies.
But, I guess it's no different than the government regulating anonymous online speech about stocks.
But, I guess it's no different than the government regulating anonymous online speech about stocks.
The medium doesn't exempt people from those laws.
Why? I mean, in which of the cases where they were specifically treated as "advertisement" were the facts of case such that the postings should not have been viewed as an advertisement?
Why, particularly, would any of these facts make an advertisement any less an advertisement, or any less subject to any regulation that applies to advertisement generally?
1. The fact that the source is concealed ("anonymous postings")
2. The fact that it is published via a privately owned channel ("private")
3. The fact that it is published on the web ("website")