In Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976), the United States Supreme Court opined that commercial speech is entitled to some protection. Based on the public’s right to receive the free flow of commercial information, the Court held that commercial speech is protected First Amendment speech and may not be prohibited absolutely. Subsequently, in Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 97 S.Ct. 2691, 53 L.Ed.2d 810 (1977), the Court extended the “Commercial Speech Doctrine” to lawyer advertising, holding that a total prohibition on the advertisement of routine legal services is unconstitutional. Show
Lawyer advertising, as a form of commercial speech, receives a level of constitutional protection that is above unprotected speech (e.g., false, deceptive or misleading statements or advertisements concerning unlawful activities) but below that provided completely protected speech (e.g., political statements). Under the “Commercial Speech Doctrine,” a state may totally prohibit misleading advertising and may impose restrictions if the particular content or method of advertising is inherently misleading or if experience demonstrates that the advertising is subject to abuse. In re R.M.J., 102 S.Ct. 929, 937 (1982). If the content of the advertisement is not misleading, the state may regulate it only when there is a substantial government interest being served. Id. However, the state may place reasonable restrictions upon the time, place, and manner of lawyer advertising, so long as the content or subject matter is not regulated. See, Bates, 97 S.Ct. at 2709. The standard for regulating the content of commercial speech was first articulated by the Supreme Court in Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980). There the Court found that the content of non-misleading commercial speech can be constitutionally regulated only when a substantial government interest is at stake, the regulation directly advances that interest, and the regulation is no more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. In Board of Trustees of State University of New York v. Fox, 492 U.S. 469, 109 S.Ct. 3028, 106 L.Ed.2d 388 (1989), the Court clarified the Central Hudson test for regulating commercial speech by announcing that only a “reasonable fit” must be necessary between the state interest and the regulation. The “fit” need not be perfect, only reasonable. The following decisions on lawyer advertising by the Supreme Court are recommended reading for a comprehensive understanding of the application of the “Commercial Speech Doctrine” to attorney advertising:
In what case the Supreme Court first admitted that advertising can be protected by the First Amendment?Bigelow v. Virginia, (1975): The U.S. Supreme Court said the First Amendment protects an ad containing factual material of clear public interest and promoting a legal activity. Virginia newspaper ran ad for abortion service in New York.
Which case said that the First Amendment protects corporate speech?The Supreme Court articulated the four-part, modern test for the protection of commercial speech in Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980).
Which Supreme Court case set the first precedent that commercial speech was not guaranteed as much protection from the First Amendment as political speech?As established in Central Hudson v. Public Svn. Comm'n, commercial speech is less protected under the First Amendment than other forms of speech. Central Hudson established a four-part test for whether governmental regulation of commercial speech is constitutional.
Which Supreme Court case dealt with freedom of speech for corporations?In Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission (1980), the Court recognized and expanded the First Amendment free speech rights of corporations... FEC v.
|