Law of Advertising and Public Relations- Commercial Speech Doctrine
Law of Advertising and Public Relations- Commercial Speech Doctrine JMC-40016-001
Popular in LAW OF ADVERTISING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS
Popular in Culture
This 2 page Class Notes was uploaded by Megan Angelo on Tuesday April 12, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to JMC-40016-001 at Kent State University taught by Timothy A. Roberts (P) in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 8 views. For similar materials see LAW OF ADVERTISING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS in Culture at Kent State University.
Reviews for Law of Advertising and Public Relations- Commercial Speech Doctrine
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 04/12/16
Commercial Speech Doctrine 4/12/16 Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission - Current 1 Amendment advertising precedent - Supreme Court created a 4-prong test to assess the constitutionality of restrictions on commercial speech Background - During energy crisis of 1970’s the Public Service Commission of New York banned advertising/ promoting the consumption of electricity - After the crises abated, the PSC continued the ban as a conservative measure Utility Disagrees - Central Hudson Gas and Electric Co. sued to overturn the ban, arguing st that it violated their 1 Amendment right to exercise free speech without warranted government regulation Lower courts upheld the ban st th Question: Dos it violate the 1 and 14 Amendments? Outcome: - Ruled the ban was unconstitutional- the ban was too broad Legacy: - 4 pronged test- assess if regulations were constitutional 4- Pronged Test Part 1- Does the speech promote illegal activity or products, or is it false or misleading? - If yes, regulation is constitutional - If no, the government can relate ONLY if it can successfully answer the next three questions Part 2- Does the government have a substantial interest in regulating the speech in question? - Government has burden of proof- public interest Part 3- Does the manner in which the government actually seeks to regulate directly help the government achieve this substantial interest? Part 4- Is the regulation no more extensive than necessary “narrowly tailored” to further the substantial government interest? Central Hudson- 4- Pronged Test Applied to the Case 1.)Not misleading or illegal 2.)Substantial government interest- conserve energy 3.)Would help achieve substantial government interest - Connection- advertising and the demand for electricity 4.)Ban too broad and not narrowly tailored- ban was overturned - No complete ban - The ban suppresses speed that in no way impairs that state’s interest in energy conservation Impact: Court retreated from its anti-paternalism stance 4- Prong test established 1.)A level of intermediate scrutiny for commercial speech 2.)A greater tolerance for commercial speech restrictions that still exists today Loose Garment: Posades de Puerto Rico Association v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico (1986) - No advertising within the area- for gambling- they didn’t want the residents to gamble- tourists were ok - Seen as an exception to Central Hudson Case State University of New York v. Fox (1989) - Centered on 4 - Prong - Advertising of a Tupperware party in a dorm room- No commercial Solicitation- regulation of SUNY - Supreme Court ruled for SUNY - Required a reasonable fit Rubin v. Coors Brewing (1995) - Prohibited beer companies from displaying alcohol content on labeling - Outcome- people need to know the content- so it’s now legal
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'