I don't see the problem with banning or otherwise regulating certain representations if that is a useful tool against the production you are trying to stop.
This sort of "everything is allowed" arguments just seems like a way to avoid having to think carefully about what restrictions are reasonable, and what constitutes responsible use of information. Simply lazy irresponsibility.
Except it's not "everything is allowed", and the "ban and regulate everything" mentality seems to be more harmful, useless, waste of time and money in reality.
I have commented before about A/B testing the law to achieve statistical outcomes, and I absolutely do see a problem with it. It tosses principles and liberties out the window. Legislating things that are correlated with the thing you want to avoid is a utilitarian bridge too far for me.
So you'll be fine with DUI? After all, it's not the alcohol we're trying to avoid - it's the accidents, which are correlated with alcohol (for obvious reasons).
Truth is, often correlations are the only things we can go after to fight the things we don't want.
I think that reaching for legislation as the tool to minmax any desirable societal metric is a bad doctrine. That does not mean I am against every possible instance of it. DUI is very immediate. It's like putting one round in the chamber and pointing it at a public space. But, for example, I am opposed to restricting speech and free association as a less expensive proxy for stopping various things.
