I don't think you're going to get very far with the "don't tell me what do do" when the conversation at hand is almost entirely about advertising, versus gambling itself. Advertising is by both design and nature, intrusive. It is beamed directly into my living room while I am as close to a captive audience as possible, especially if it's happening during the play. People gambling on their own time doesn't effect me, media that I'm consuming does. I think most liberal-minded people will agree that people can gamble if they want to, but only the more hardened libertarians are going to agree that restricting advertising is stepping on the snake. The rest of us are willing to trade some freedoms for security, and the freedom of our nations' businesses for some security in terms of shielding from an overwhelming quantity of vices being advertised, is a trade long since completed. There's absolutely an order of magnitude that goes along with this, nobody ever cared about casino or lottery ads for the last few decades.
I also think you are mistakenly assuming that such a reduction would necessarily come from legal action or law enforcement. Consumers voicing their displeasure, which my post would certainly count as, is intended to let the business entities concerned know that I am upset with the current state of affairs. Do I not have some form of recourse in between outright ignoring the issue and a boycott? Can I tell the NHL that I hate their new stupid advertising strategy because it's intrusive, distracting, repetitive, and irrelevant to me? I'm not even concerned about the morality here, that's an entirely separate argument, which I make in other posts, the post you quoted is entirely about how the NHL's short term business strategy will lead to long term failure. I'd figure the libertarians would appreciate that sort of post. According to the law they can advertise all the gambling want, I think it will bite the NHL in the ass in the end and I have my own streaming cancellation emails to prove it.
So when I write a post saying that this advertising strategy is a sign that the NHL has made a terrible business choice, and that a strategy involving the money from gambling ads will devour the league, I don't think "don't tell me what to do" is an effective counter. By all means, the NHL can alienate its non-libertarian fans all it likes, but if enough eventually leave the gambling dollars will go chase them somewhere else and then the NHL will be left with no revenue whatsoever. No fans, no advertisers, just a husk and everybody loses. This is a business case and I'm just a free consultant. Consumers are within their own liberties to ask for their products to not come with externalities that they find objectionable for any reason.
I'm inclined towards this side of the moral argument, but at the end of the day, I just do not think the freedom to advertise is all that important, mostly because advertising is in and of itself intrusive. Your right to be intrusive is in direct conflict with my right to be left alone, and I just want to be left alone to watch the dang hockey game, Jesse Pinkman.
