I'd be quite alright with banning (or at least heavily regulating) illuminated billboards. Those are indeed very distracting, and the light pollution concern is valid.
Billboards in general, though? I live in a place with lots of billboards and they're pretty easy to ignore. I don't really see the upside here to what would constitute a freedom of speech/expression infringement.
I think the more reasonable emphasis should be on regulating the light escaping from a property, not micromanaging the property itself. Limit the lumens or whatever in various protected directions (into the sky, onto roadways, etc.) and that would address the entirety of the actually-valid concerns.
Online ads are hard to ignore specifically because they use system resources to display - especially when they're JavaScript-heavy, but even without JS they still often entail image downloads and such that do add up. Billboards ain't really analogous; obnoxious lighting notwithstanding, they're no more obtrusive than a building or a tree or a sculpture or anything else that might exist on some plot of land - and while I'd personally prefer to see a building or tree or sculpture, I don't feel strongly enough about there being a billboard instead to desire outright criminalization (read: use of violence by the state in response) of billboards entirely.
Billboards in general, though? I live in a place with lots of billboards and they're pretty easy to ignore. I don't really see the upside here to what would constitute a freedom of speech/expression infringement.
I think the more reasonable emphasis should be on regulating the light escaping from a property, not micromanaging the property itself. Limit the lumens or whatever in various protected directions (into the sky, onto roadways, etc.) and that would address the entirety of the actually-valid concerns.