Obviously NO. This doesn't even only apply to basic topics such as 3R, but in business practices such advertising where competitive advertising (the mention of a business's competitor) is prohibited or heavy regulated to the extend that such action is deemed outright illegal.

Commercial or not, it's important to acknowledge that such laws are created by humans, which reflect an underlying intent to suppress. Freedom of speech is not limited to personal opinions. It encompasses the rights to share truthful information, even in commercial contexts. The belief that this has no impact on freedom of speech arises from a norm created by the already restrictive status, which only sustain the erosion of such rights.

Buddy, laws ONLY aim to balance competing rights. But they often tip the scale toward protecting trademark holders at the expense of free expression.

The distinction you make about 'use' is also kinda artificial, which reflects your cautious statement of 'do not typically happen'… Because opinions and truthful statements about a mark, even in commercial settings, are integral to keeping public informed and shouldn't be dismissed as part of a legal compromise.

I assume this general statement doesn't relate to the fact that it is still, simply, a form of expression, be it from individual or organization regardless of purposes.



You may believe it is out of fairness. I believe the degree in which it's being regulated stems from a society with cultural and political restriction.

Ambiguous point, but no need to split hair. Trademark law allows mentions outside "trademark use," in reality, businesses here avoid mentioning competitors or sharing critical opinions in ads due to fear. The question is where does this fear come from? The line between "mentioning" a mark and "using" it can also be blurred, making highly regulated trademark law a pretty good tool for advocating people to just STFU. If I contrast this to the US, you'll learn that their regulator FTC (Federal Trade Commission) even encourages comparative advertising.
Not that uncommon.

An environmental organization called Save River was sued by a logging company in Miri, for the #StopTheChop campaign and their statement audited turns out to be true. Even though eventually, the big corporation decided to withdraw their lawsuit for whatever reason, it happened.

https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/lat...pp-co-responds/

Or something closer to a for-profit creative commercial. A lawsuit filed against McCurry restaurant that was never a mark infringement to begin with.

https://theedgemalaysia.com/article/counsel...-tussle-mccurry

You take away the commercial context and look purely at expression, we're left with people's ideas and opinions stifled on a large or individual level, not just from regulation, but also out of fear for the consequence here.
Sure

If I contrast this to the US, you'll learn that their regulator FTC (Federal Trade Commission) even encourages comparative advertising.

I specifically pointed out how different places have different views in competitive advertising,

how drawing the line between commercial activities and personal opinion/expression is simply artificial as commercial context involve opinions and criticism, still fundamental to free speech.

You can choose to ignore the cases. The principle applies across the board. Expression gets stifled. Fear of consequences keeps people silent. Topic of thread.