Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In the United States, commercial speech is "entitled to substantial First Amendment protection, albeit less than political, ideological, or artistic speech". [2] In the 1980 case Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court developed a four-part test to determine whether commercial speech regulation violates the First Amendment: [3]
Commercial speech, however, is less protected by the First Amendment than political speech, and is therefore subject to greater regulation. The Free Press Clause protects publication of information and opinions, and applies to a wide variety of media. In Near v. Minnesota (1931) and New York Times v.
This doctrine of limited protection for advertisements is due to a balancing inherent in the policy explanations for the rule, namely that other types of speech (for example, political) are much more important. [30] In J.C. Penney Corporation vs Cynthia Spann, Cynthia Spann argued that J.C. Penney used false advertising on their sales. Spann ...
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), was an important case decided by the United States Supreme Court that laid out a four-part test for determining when restrictions on commercial speech violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Justice Powell wrote the opinion of the ...
Blackmun further described how the court had whittled down the "commercial speech" exemption through past precedent; for example, Bigelow v. Virginia, [5] in which the Court struck down a Virginia statute prohibiting the advertisement of out-of-state abortion procedures. [6]
However, he also argued that "virtually all government activities involve speech", and many involve content-based regulations on speech. [54] Therefore, he concluded that a rule triggering strict scrutiny for all cases involving content-based restrictions would be a "recipe for judicial management of ordinary government regulatory activity". [55]
Free speech is pro-democracy; America's adversaries—countries like China and Russia—on the other hand, crack down on free speech and eliminate internal dissent wherever possible.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding campaign finance laws and free speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.