Commercial speech is defined as “speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the intent of making a profit. It is economic in nature and usually has the intent of convincing the audience to partake in a particular action, often purchasing a specific product” (Wikipedia). Commercial speech has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be less entitled to protection under the First Amendment than noncommercial speech (LIU). Because it is so influential in nature, commercial speech that is deemed “false or misleading” in any way is not guaranteed to any protection under the First Amendment (LIU). Significant cases concerning commercial speech include Valentine v. Chrestensen and Ohlarik v. Ohio State Bar Association, during which the Supreme Court ruled that the Board of Ohio Supreme Court ban on in-person solicitations did not violate an attorney’s First or Fourteenth Amendment rights.
This report includes four cases for which commercial speech is the key legal issue at play.
EDIT PLAYLIST INFORMATION DELETE PLAYLIST
Edit playlist item notes below to have a mix of public & private notes, or:MAKE ALL NOTES PUBLIC (6/6 playlist item notes are public) MAKE ALL NOTES PRIVATE (0/6 playlist item notes are private)
|1.1||Show/Hide More||Free Speech Advertising|
|1.3||Show/Hide More||Victory For Commercial Free Speech At The Supreme Court|
|1.5||Show/Hide More||About the FTC|
|1.6||Show/Hide More||Truth in Advertising about page|
|2||Show/Hide More||Current FTC Doctrine on Deceptive Advertising by Nick Papadis|
|2.2.7||Show/Hide More||How to file a complaint with the FTC|
|2.2.8||Show/Hide More||Complaint in the case of FTC vs DirecTV|
|3||Show/Hide More||Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission by Connor Luce|
The key legal issue in this case is commercial speech. The case, which was argued on March 17, 1980 and decided on June 20, 1980, was between Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. and the New York Public Service Commission. In order to promote the conservation of energy, the Public Service Commission aimed to restrict Central Hudson from advertising their services and, by association, the use of electricity. Commercial speech, which refers to “speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the intent of making a profit” (Wikipedia), is central to the arguments of this case. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Central Hudson Gas & Electric, arguing that the Public Service Commission’s advertising regulations violated Central Hudson’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Some Cases related to this case include:
|3.1.2||Show/Hide More||Case overview of Central Hudson vs. Public Service Commission|
|3.1.3||Show/Hide More||Further Background on the Central Hudson vs Public Service Commission case|
|3.2||Show/Hide More||Primary Sources in Central Hudson vs Public Service Commission and other Resources|
|3.2.1||Show/Hide More||Annotated Excerpt of the Supreme Court Decision in the Central Hudson case|
|3.2.5||Show/Hide More||Prezi on Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission|
|4||Show/Hide More||FTC and L’Oreal’s false ‘scientific’ tests by Victoria Haviland|
|4.1||Show/Hide More||Summary article titled "We’re not getting any younger: L’Oréal settles FTC charges over deceptive anti-aging claims"|
|4.2.3||Show/Hide More||AGREEMENT CONTAINING CONSENT ORDER|
|4.3||Show/Hide More||Ads from the L'Oreal Case (multimedia)|
|5||Show/Hide More||POM Wonderful LLC v Coca-Cola Co. by Michael Cherry|
|5.2||Show/Hide More||Relavent Articles in POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola Co.|
|5.2.1||Show/Hide More||“Pom Wins in the Supreme Court. Now it's Pom v. Coke, Round 2”|
|6||Show/Hide More||Journal Articles and Other Resources on Commercial Speech|
|6.3||Show/Hide More||Class Activity on Commecial Speech and Advertising|
This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. This means you can view content but cannot create content. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org. Thank you.