1. What were you hoping to accomplish with the Dylan quote? Are you ceding the agency argument and now asserting that advertising should be banned because it's obscene?
2. What scaling effects are we ignoring? You quoted Dylan, someone who communicated at a very large scale -- do you consider his communication to be worse on that basis? Is it immoral that we are discussing this on a forum rather than email?
If your main argument is that you're ideologically opposed to corporate advertising, why not just say that?
It was an illustrative description of the effect of money. That it's not speech so much as drowning out all else in the room.
If you prefer quantitative rather than qualitative results, this article on a recent Princeton University study on the influence of money in political policy:
Professors Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin I. Page (Northwestern University) looked at more than 20 years worth of data to answer a simple question: Does the government represent the people?
Their study took data from nearly 2000 public opinion surveys and compared it to the policies that ended up becoming law. In other words, they compared what the public wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of 90% of Americans have essentially no impact at all.
...
“The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”
One thing that does have an influence? Money. While the opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America have a “statistically non-significant impact,” Economic elites, business interests, and people who can afford lobbyists still carry major influence.
Similarly, money bought decades of protection for the tobacco industry -- the medical link between smoking and cancer was established in the 1940s.
(So, yes, there's a literal truth to the complaints of some smokers about anti-smoking Nazis...).
Or, in the case of lead added to paint and gasoline, an understanding dating to the late eighteenth century, at least (though earlier understanding of harms dates back to 2000 BC), of the negative health consequences of lead, the harms from paint (up to 50% lead by weight) by the early 20th century. The "Dutch Boy" paint brand was adopted by National Lead Company (now NL Industries, Dutch Boy was sold to Sherwin-Williams in 1980). Or asbestos. Or CFCs. Or CO₂ and global warming. Or sugar, corn syrup, and diabetes.
Robert N. Proctor calls this "agnotology": culturally induced ignorance. It's only possible due to the scale of spending behind such disinformation. Millions to billions of dollars, over time.
While that's only a part of the problem with advertising, it's a large one.
I've mentioned Jerry Mander's Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, which deals heavily with advertising, and Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death. I recommend both, strongly.
Also Adam Curtis's Century of the Self documentary.
Scale effects are far too often ignored. The scale effects of highly concentrated corporate ad purchases are tremendous.