Development of Commercial Speech Doctrine- Law of Advertsising and Public Relations
Development of Commercial Speech Doctrine- Law of Advertsising and Public Relations JMC-40016-001
Popular in LAW OF ADVERTISING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS
Popular in Culture
verified elite notetaker
This 2 page Class Notes was uploaded by Megan Angelo on Tuesday April 5, 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 12 views. For similar materials see LAW OF ADVERTISING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS in Culture at Kent State University.
Reviews for Development of Commercial Speech Doctrine- Law of Advertsising and Public Relations
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 04/05/16
Development of Commercial Speech Doctrine 4/5 Loose Garment- but will be needed for the research paper Definition – is still under debate - Proposes a transaction – 49 states- Not California - Too narrow? Why is it regulated? - Second class citizen- according to the first amendment - Intermediate scrutiny Penny press- news important to the readers End of 1800’s prompted concern for ad claims - Rstulations grew as advertising grew - 1 regulation- “Printers Ink” – criminal sanctions and fines o Developed a model statute for false ad claims in 1911 Federal Trade Commission - Established in 1914- address deceptive business acts and practices - Grew to oversee enforcement of commercial speech Food and Drug Administration – 1930 - Monitors commercial speech in FED Sectors Valentine v. Chrestensen (1943) MMC. Pg. 21 - Legal commercial speech doctrine classifying it as regulated speech - Purely commercial speech - Distributed handbills/ flyers - Included cost of tour - This broke the city ordinance - Revised the handbill- 1 side talked about the tour- no price- on the other side it protested the ordinance - He won twice and the city appealed - Supreme Court revised the ordinance - Purely advertising - Not protected Bigelow v. Virginia (1975) - “underground” Virginia Weekly - Ad for abortion - Misdemeanor- cant advertise about abortion - Virginia Weekly ran an ad for an organization in New York- where you can get an abortion - Two lower courts- Bigelow- guilty - Supreme Court- Bigelow- won o Factual information o “public interest”- beyond commercial speech - Helped widen protection to commercial speech - “advertising is not stripped of all First Amendment protection” Virginia Citizens Consumer Council v. Virginia State Board of Pharmacy (1976) - Virginia statue – prohibiting prescription drug advertising- such ads are considered to be “unprofessional” - Board of Pharmacy claimed- ignorant consumers might be swayed to patronize the store with the lower cost rather than the higher quality alternatives - Citizens- it is the right of consumers to know alternatives with respect to drug prices - Right of Consumers - Council said consumers have 1 Amendment right to know the prices - District court- struck down - Board appealed - Supreme Court- affirmed the District Court o Cant restrict public knowledge about lawful competitive pricing Importance - Extended 1 and 14 Amendment rights to commercial speech, even when the advertisers interest is “purely economic” st - Narrowed the 1 Amendment commercial speech exception to speech that touted an illegal product or activity and to false misleading and deceptive commercial claims