Advertising: Not "low value" speech

The Supreme Court has long afforded commercial messages in a newspaper or magazine less protection than it has the rest of the publication's content, a doctrinal distinction that is largely supported by First Amendment scholars. The article contends that this contemporary judicial and scholarly...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Yale journal on regulation 1999-01, Vol.16 (1), p.85-144
Main Author: Troy, Daniel E
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Advertising
Advertising restrictions
Commercial speech
First Amendment-US
History
Politics
Power
Property
Regulation
Speech
Supreme Court
Supreme Court decisions
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The Supreme Court has long afforded commercial messages in a newspaper or magazine less protection than it has the rest of the publication's content, a doctrinal distinction that is largely supported by First Amendment scholars. The article contends that this contemporary judicial and scholarly treatment of advertising as low value speech is misplaced. Although the Court's recent decision in 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996) suggests the possibility that the Court is moving towards a more protective stance in commercial speech cases, the Court persists in its treatment of advertising as low value speech. An abandonment of the distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech is necessary both to return to modern Supreme Court jurisprudence to First Amendment principles and to eliminate inconsistency and confusion that the distinction has produced in the lower federal courts.
ISSN:0741-9457
2376-5925