Skip to main content

Crisis Pregnancy Centers and Commercial Speech (5)

Understandably, the Supreme Court decided that commercial speech deserves less protection under the first amendment than noncommercial speech. But even before that there was recognition that commercial speech should not be fully protected speech because there is some incentive to mislead the public in order to sell products and or services. In 1914, Woodrow Wilson created the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, initially as a way to fight trusts and enforce anti-trust law, or more specifically to fight “unfair methods of competition in commerce” (Tedford & Herbeck 213). It interpreted this as having the power to regulate advertising, specifically stopping false and misleading advertising, and the Supreme Court agreed (Tedford & Herbeck 214).  Now there are FTC guidelines for what is considered false or deceptive advertising. What makes deceptive advertising, in part, is that there must be a “representation, omission, or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer” (Tedford & Herbeck 215). The FTC also looks at the advertising from the perspective of the consumer, so how a reasonable consumer would interpret and understand the ad is part of the determination of whether or not there ad is deceptive. Finally, the omission or misrepresentation must be a “material one,” or one of significance (Tedford & Herbeck 215). For instance, if an ad for toothpaste shows a green tube, but in actuality the tube is red that would not be a material misrepresentation or omission.

This brings to mind Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) that are essentially pro-life institutions. Some engage in false advertising, as they pose as abortion providers. But they do not provide abortions. Instead they provide women with false information about abortion--- that it could increase their risk of breast cancer, result in sterility and other false information (Winter 2015). In some cases they will require women to get multiple sonograms in an attempt to delay the abortion. In some cases women get fed up, go to a legitimate clinic only to learn that it is too late and an abortion cannot be performed. Some states have tried to regulate CPCs by forcing them to post signs that say they do not provide contraceptives or abortions (Winter 2015). But most of the laws have been struck down as a violation of the CPCs free speech (Winter 2015). 

To me, it would seem that these CPCs are violating the FTC’s rules about false advertising. They are misleading the consumer, in a material way. However, because most of these CPCs are nonprofits, the courts have decided that their speech is noncommercial because they are not selling anything, there is no direct economic transaction—the services are free. But there is an economic consequence: having a child. To me, it seems like this should fall under commercial speech.

Sources:
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of speech in the United States. 8th ed., State      College, PA, Strata Publishing, Inc., 2017.


Winter, Meaghan. “Three Legal Strategies for Bringing Down Crisis Pregnancy Centers.” Slate          Magazine, 17 June 2015,             

Comments

  1. I think this post is very interesting, and I completely agree with your opinion that Crisis Pregnancy Centers are in violation of FTC rules on false advertising. Being nonprofit organizations, I would assume Crisis Pregnancy Centers to be aiming to help pregnant women understand all of the options they have without a hidden agenda. There is a misleading factor in their advertising where they claim to counsel pregnant women on their options, but really end up telling them all of the bad things about abortion once they are in the door. It should be illegal and definitely not protected under the First Amendment to create an image for your organization that you help counsel pregnant women and then, as you mention, feed them false information about negative effects of abortion or stall them until it is too late to decide on an abortion. As of right now it is still a woman's choice of what she does with her pregnancy, so any company, organization, or other person should not have the right to be able to heavily influence or stall her decision.

    One thing I wonder is if the FTC will ever be able to win this battle and order the Crisis Pregnancy Centers to post, in writing, that they do not perform or support abortions. Also, what influence we, the people, could have on this problem; how do we help prevent this false advertising? Can we? As a start, I think it would first help by making edits to the First Amendment, to make it less vague. I believe that is a way that people will be less likely to get around the law. We can also make ourselves more informed, and inform those around us about these kinds of organizations and protections under the First Amendment. In the end, the people truly hold power to create change.

    ReplyDelete

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...

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...

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 ...