The problem is you can't outlaw an entire class of speech as the article proposes.
The other exceptions are, literally, extremely limited to things which hold no legitimate public value like child pornography. If you can name only one legitimate instance of advertising then they are, by definition, proposing a content based prohibition of speech -- they don't like what these advertisers say while those other ones are fine because of whatever reasons.
They can change the laws but the courts place the burden on the government to prove that the problem can't be solved by any lesser means. And when they say "any" they really do mean "any", the problem can't be solved without making the targeted speech illegal.
Good luck altering the constitution to allow for content based prohibition of speech.
Now, on the other hand, the Supreme Court can also chose to ignore a couple centuries of case law and effect the same goal but that's also less likely than changing the constitution.
Let's take advertising out of it, what are the chances we would even be seriously discussing this issue if TFA was proposing to outlaw an entire religion?
The other exceptions are, literally, extremely limited to things which hold no legitimate public value like child pornography. If you can name only one legitimate instance of advertising then they are, by definition, proposing a content based prohibition of speech -- they don't like what these advertisers say while those other ones are fine because of whatever reasons.
They can change the laws but the courts place the burden on the government to prove that the problem can't be solved by any lesser means. And when they say "any" they really do mean "any", the problem can't be solved without making the targeted speech illegal.