Commercial speech & 1st Amendment

During this weeks readings and class discussions of first amendment right's, and commercial speech. I was very shocked by the evolution of commercial speech itself. In this blog I want to tackle 2 major court cases we've read and talked about in class discussions. The Virginia State board of pharmacy V. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council Inc, and Valentine V. Chrestensen. The Valentine case involved speech by commercial enterprise. Once the Board of pharmacy case came to the Supreme Court it allowed for the 5 legal hallmarks of the Va. Board and forever changed the way we are allowed to operate within the first amendment. I will also discuss the implications of protecting commercialized speech, along with vice advertising.

What the cases meant for Commercial speech

With Valentine V. Chrestensen taking place in 1942, the supreme court determed that commercial speech could be regulated. Due to its ancillary nature, it was determined it was like any other business practice, except its not. Government can't and should not be allowed to regulate speech for an informative purpose. This case involved speech by commercial enterprise, which meant that they promoting and informing the public of valuable infromation that could be of use when deciding on a commercialized product. The arguement is that if poloticians can use their political prowless to determine which way a voter votes, and that go unregulated then why must commercial speech? For 34 years the situation remained this way, but in 1976 during the Virginia Board of Pharmacy it changed. Virginia has a prohibition on prescription drug advertising. It was seen as a First Amendment Violation. The court struck down Valentine and confered intermidate protection. The court is qouted saying “is nonetheless dissemination of information as to who is producing and selling what product, for what reason, and at what price.” Those being 2 of the major hallmarks. The last 3 were that it cleared time , place, and manner restraints. created 3 exceptions, and created the right to receive.

Implications of the Commercial speech Doctrine

Vice advertising was a big implication of permitting and protecting commercial speech. Vice advertising can be seen as obscene or wicked behavior. Such things as liquor, condoms, and gambling would be hard to regulate. There started to be a flurry of cases entering the Supreme Court starting in 1983 with Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp with more cases through 2001. Many cases were popping up frequently dealing with vice advertising due to anti competitors ( those who don't want the product sold and distributed for financial gain.) That insinuated themselves into government protocols.

What we Learned and how it applied today

Commercial speech is something that we come across daily without recognizing it. On televised networks, in your community, or on the internet. Some of the most obscene things are protected by the first amendment. Many companies have started to regulate themselves, so that governemnt won't step in. Right to publicity is a subset of appropriation. Making sure you have the right to publicize your product or service is important. Claim based advertsing requires efficacy. You can't just go around making false and misleading claims. In this article its said that Redbull can give you wings, and that Kellogs mini wheats will make you smarter. these false and misleading claims lead to lawsuits and court cases.