Skip to main content

Commercial Speech

Commercial Speech being regulated by state governments is often seen as unruly by the courts. Some are concerned that it trampled on the First Amendment Rights. In the article that I found, the Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly case led to the establishment of the Central Hudson test. It acted as a way to make certain that the regulations placed on certain commercial speeches were not in violation of the First Amendment. It looked and tested for four specific points.
1: Weather the speech used in the commercial is indeed lawful and does not mislead its audience. 
2: If the attention the government is giving the commercial speech is warranted
3: Weather or not the restriction on the speech is purely based on what the government has to gain from it. 
4: And lastly; weather the regulation serves the purposes necessary and not over reaching 

This being said, you can make the inference that commercial speech can and will be regulated if it contains any unlawful acts or speech. It also can be regulated when it provides information that is misleading. In the case of tobacco companies, many of the advertisements fail to express the associated health risks that come with smoking. No real company wants to degrade the value of their product, and hence making it any commercial speech difficult for these products. Such products are called “vice products”.  The question I pose to you all is this, would you ever attempt to make commercials for a product you sell, knowing good and well that there are restrictions set upon what you could and could not portray in said commercial? Does the First Amendment really protect you if you were to go to court?




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gamifying Citizenship

The historical context of freedom of speech is an extremely interesting one. Why is it that the concept of free speech has been an undying one and has span the history of human communication. Breaking free speech in to three traditional rationals makes the concept easier to understand and definitely makes sense. These three modes of freedom of speech are philosophical, political and individual. They are easy to distinct from one another and function in completely different ways. From a philosophical level, free speech is a device of truth. That if people are able to speak freely and let their ideas compete, "in the long run the truth will prevail" according to Tedford and Herbeck. I find this interesting, because in my mind, this is the most important facet of free speech. I say this, because I find free speech essential for any kind of societal advancements. If people are not allowed to speak their mind and share their ideas, or discredit others ideas, how is a society supp...
1 comment
Read more

Wedding Cake Court Case (make-up post)

Wedding cake court case involving a gay couple, Charlie Craig & David Mullins, and a cake baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for the couple. Just all around, it's a tricky debate with many different angles due to the baker arguing on the grounds of the First Amendment---its protections for free speech and the free exercise of religion. In the end, I think it comes down to whether we consider baking a cake qualifies an exercise of freedom of expression. I would say that it depends on the situation/context of baking. If Mr. Phillips wants his cake baking to be categorized artistic expression that falls under free expression, he can just go bake a cake on his own. Only then when he's on his own private time does it qualify, but as soon as he offered his skills as a public service via his business, I'd argue he gave that right to expression up. Also, what's stopping other artisans/professional services to deny services? By Mr. Phillip's logic...
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is Freedom of Speech Important in a Democracy

While reading Chapter 15, I got the sense that the book was really coming full circle. In the first week of class, we established a meaning for freedom of speech and that shared meaning allowed us to navigate the classroom together as a classroom and a collective group. Creating a space that also involved mutual respect of opinons but encouraging difference in them as well. This brings me to an article I found about the importance of Freedom of Speech in a democracy. It is a basic human right to be able to express opinions and beliefs in our country. Although that is the main component, just like we established in class the first few weeks, in a government and democracy, Freedom of Speech also consists of the ability to listen to people with difference in opinions. In the article , editor Rachael  Jolly says, “ We are going through a time where people don’t want to be on a panel with people they disagree with. But we should feel comfortable being in a room with people who disagree ...
4 comments
Read more