...Evolution of Advertising (Commercial Speech) Law For many years the U.S. Supreme Court defined commercial speech as speech that proposes nothing more than an economic transaction. At first this particular type of speech did not receive protection under the First Amendment, and many problems arose over the years from the narrow definition of commercial speech, which the U.S. Supreme Court found it necessary to address and change over time. Such issues that arose are: does the State have the authority to regulate commercial speech? A more fundamental issue, is the intention of profit alone what makes some speech, commercial speech? Lastly, should commercial speech be protected under the First Amendment, and if so, should the protection be conditional? The Supreme Court’s current view on the matter may be traced historically through the evolution of four key cases. Although prior to 1976 the U.S. Supreme Court’s view was that commercial speech was not protected under the First Amendment, nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s view was altered, after the Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council in 1976, to hold that commercial speech does not sit completely outside of First Amendment protection. Mainly due to the evolution of the interpretation of commercial speech that is derived from the Supreme Court’s ruling over the cases: Valentine v. Chrestensen, New York Times v. Sullivan, Bigelow v. Virginia, and Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer...
Words: 2212 - Pages: 9
...the people. However, there have been cases in the past where professionals abuse the freedoms that are given to them, and limitations are then set in place. The Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc exemplifies a case where the Supreme Court decided that individuals deserve to have the right to privacy. 1 The Supreme Court took notice of the First Amendment implications to limitations of personal injury lawyers from sending targeted direct-mail solicitations to victims and their relatives for 30 days following an accident or disaster. 2 The Court established used a the Central Hudson test, which was a four –part test, which engages in “intermediate” scrutiny of restrictions in commercial speech, analyzing them under the framework set forth in Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp v. Public Service Commission of N.Y. The test, predicated on a making sure that three prongs are being proven: first the government must assert a substantial interest in support of its...
Words: 1203 - Pages: 5
...U.S. 809 Bigelow v. Virginia Facts: Jeffrey C. Bigelow was the managing editor for The Virginia Weekly, a newspaper which was published in Charlottesville, Virginia. He was charged with violating Virginia law on May 13, 1971, after printing an advertisement for a New York City agency that helped women arrange for, finance and obtain abortions. The ad print was as follows: UNWANTED PREGNANCY LET US HELP YOU Abortions are now legal in New York. There are no residency requirements. FOR IMMEDIATE PLACEMENT IN ACCREDITED HOSPITALS AND CLINICS AT LOW COST Contact WOMEN's PAVILION 515 Madison Avenue New York, N.Y. 10022 or call any time (212) 371-6670 or (212) 371-6650 AVAILABLE 7 DAYS A WEEK STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. We will make all arrangements for you and help you with information and counseling. 1 Specifically, Mr. Bigelow was charged with violating Va. Code Ann. § 18.1-63 (1960). The statute made it a misdemeanor to encourage or prompt the processing of an abortion "by publication, lecture, advertisement, or by the sale or circulation of any publication, or in any other manner, encourage or prompt the procuring of abortion or miscarriage". Mr. Bigelow was tried and convicted in Albemarle County Court. He appealed to the Albemarle County Circuit Court, where he was granted a de novo trial. De Novo is Latin for ‘new beginning’, so a de novo trial is a completely new trial. Typically, a trial de novo is ordered by an appellate court when the original...
Words: 15430 - Pages: 62