Running Head: THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND ADVERTISING
The First Amendment and Advertising
Freedom of expression in the United States is protected from government control of the Bill of Rights, which is an integral part of the Constitution. In particular, the First Amendment states that Congress did not take long wives, no law, “abridgements of freedom of speech or of the press or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and treatment with a petition to the government demanding compensation for injuries Nana hay.” Initially, the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of expression is not absolute, although pre-restrictions on the dissemination of information are justified only in the most compelling circumstances, by other means. The Supreme Court particularly emphasizes loyalty to a principle that the First Amendment applies to most media, including newspapers, books, magazines, broadcast and film. However, since then, when in 1791 Congress passed this amendment, the Supreme Court is constantly changing its interpretation so that it could be applicable to a variety of emerging situations. First Amendment of the Constitution of United States of America protects the advertising. Commercial Speech or advertising is however affected more from other types of speech as compared by the protection from First Amendment as governmental encroachment (Baker, 2009). For example, FTC or Federal Trade Commission strongly regulates the deceptive speech or advertisement. And there are also different types of speech or advertisement regulated under Federal Trade Commission.
One of the fundamental principles of the American social order is a public right to knowledge. Framers of the Constitution of the United States repelled by rigid control under which the British rulers of the American colonies held information and ideas that do not cause their approval. These people were convinced that the power of knowledge to be transferred into the hands of the people. “Knowledge is always triumph over ignorance, – claimed James Madison, fourth president of the country and one of the earliest advocates of freedom of the press. The people seeking to control their own destiny, to arm the power that gives us knowledge (Vile, John, David Hudson, Jr., and David Schultz, 2009). ”
In order to ensure a healthy and unhindered flow of information, the creators of the new government included the freedom of the press in a number of fundamental human rights guaranteed by the state born adopted in the Bill of Rights. These first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States acquired the force of law in 1791. The First Amendment says, inter alia, that “Congress cannot make new law … restricting freedom of speech or of the press “.
Such immunity from control by the federal government meant that everyone – rich or poor, regardless of their political and religious beliefs – can publish anything. As a result, as stated Madison, the right to decide what is harmful and what is not, “is the priority of the government of the people, not the government over the people (Doherty, Francis, 1992).”
Since then, the First Amendment is the conscience and a shield for all Americans who report the news, trying to publicly express their views or to influence public opinion. However, for two centuries a means of communication – what today we call “the media” – have become immeasurably more difficult. At the time of Madison media, printed matter produced
Governmental machines were few and simple: newspapers, pamphlets and books. Today, the media and also include television, radio, movies, and cable television. The term “media” is now used vary widely in relation to any, not necessarily printed bodies involved in the field of information. All of these various organizations in general are also called the “information environment” (Pollay, R. W., 1983).
This information explosion has created a complex, instantly responsive nervous system, forming values and culture of American society. News and entertainment spread with lightning speed from one end to the American continent. As a result, the media contributed to the greater unity of the United States, to overcome regional differences and customs. Across the country, people look the same transmission, often at the same time. The media created for the American people a single experience: the same news, same fun, same advertising (Zandpour, F., Chang, C., & Catalano, J., 1992).
Indeed, Americans are surrounded by information from the time they get up from bed in the morning till the moment when they go to bed at night. A typical office employee, for example, radio alarm clock wakes up the music. At breakfast, he reads the local newspaper and watching the morning news broadcasts on television. On the way to work, he listens to the radio in the car news, music, and reports on traffic. At work, he reads newspapers and specialized magazines to keep abreast of affairs in the industry. Maybe it participates in the development of an advertising campaign of a new product his company. At home after dinner, he watches the evening news television program. Then runs for more than twenty channels offered him a cable television, in search of a favorite show or sports, or the recent Hollywood movie. Falling asleep in bed, he reads a magazine or book (Martenson R. 1987).
Like most Americans, our typical office worker takes it all for granted. However, this set of information capabilities, from which the head is spinning, is a product of continuing for nearly three hundred years, the information revolution. Advances in science and technology greatly accelerated methods of collecting and disseminating information. Decisions handed down by the courts have gradually expanded the limits of the legal protection of the press. Since the media in the U.S. have always been a business that depends on advertising and trade, their owners are constantly stressed the need to appeal to the broadest audiences (Epps, Garrett, 2008).
Advertising and Media Censorship
The state, on the one hand by means of censorship, partly because it supports the media that will logically tend to avoid biting the hand that feeds them, winning the opportunity to manipulate public opinion fills the ballot box itself. Thus, to cite just one example, in May 68 protests and claims were rife for several weeks when the media decided to broach the subject. Suppressing it is preventing the public and to position itself to debate. The solution for this problem was to release information from its state supervision enabling the emergence of private channels and allowing more freedom to public channels (Emord, Jonathan W. Freedom, 1991).
The goals of this Federal Law is the development of markets for goods and services on the basis of the principles of fair competition in the Russian Federation to ensure the unity of economic space, the realization of the rights of consumers to receive fair and accurate advertising, creating favorable conditions for the production and dissemination of social advertisements warning of violation of legislation Russian Federation on advertising, as well as suppression of evidence of improper advertising. Federal Trade Commission is the primary regulatory body of government which regulates the advertising. There are various tools which FTC uses to regulate commercial speech and Advertising for Vice Products in terms of deceptive and unfair practices in accordance with cases and sometimes according to industry regulations.
Requirement of prove is the basic tool, under this tool FTC regulations. In such advertisement, in which advertiser claims that this product is recommended by physician or test prove product, under the requirement of this tool advertiser has to show the results of test or statement of doctor recommending the product. Furthermore, Federal Trade Commission also imposes obligation on advertiser to provide such statements, results of test, etc. to the consumer on its request (Baker, 2009).
In case of deceptive advertisement determined by Federal Trade Commission, it has authority on the behalf of government to stop particular ad having deceptive information and issue correction notice to sponsor or advertiser. However advertisement became legal to be aired once deceptive information is removed. Usually companies or advertisers are fined on account of breach of Federal Trade Commission regulations and First Amendment of United States Constitution, moreover in only few cases, sponsor or advertiser could be sentenced to imprisonment on the charge of using deceptive information in public speech or advertisement.
In case of use of deceptive information in public speech, FTC analyses the extent or ability of information to deceive consumer, in other words FTC analyses the capacity or tendency of information to deceive consumer according to the targeted market in public speech (Free Speech and Public Utilities). Because, advertisement or public speech for children has high susceptibility to deceive as compared with adult or mature consumers.
Censorship is the control of human expression, often by (but not limited to) government intervention. Governments around the world use censorship to suppress ideas by criminalizing or regulating expression (Constitutional Law – First Amendment). It occurs in the United States, it occurs in China, it occurs at home, it occurs everywhere. Books, newspapers, magazines, public speeches, paintings, photographs, films, television programs, songs, and e-mails have all been subject to censorship around the world. The government is too controlling of our personal lives with censorship. Government censorship is unconstitutional, revokes our rights, suppresses free will, and is harmful to society (Dennis, Everette E., Donald M. Gillmor and David Grey, 1978).
Censorship can be classified into five different types. There is moral censorship, military censorship, political censorship, religious censorship, and corporate censorship. Moral censorship can be defined as any material that contains ‘questionable’ ethics is removed. The censoring body disapproves of the values behind the material and limits access to it. An example would be pornography. Military censorship is the process of keeping military intelligence and tactics confidential. Military censorship is used to counter espionage. Political censorship is when government conceals secrets from citizens. Government can use political censorship to prevent the free expression needed to revolt. Political censorship is also used to censor anything that the government knows or does, and keeps the information from the public. Democracies do not officially approve of political censorship, but often censor things daily. Religious censorship is when any material objectionable to a certain faith is removed. Religious censorship often involves a dominant religion forcing limitations on less dominant ones (Meiners, Roger E., Ringleb, Al H. & Edwards, Frances L. 2011).
Corporate censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media stop the publishing of certain information, which can portray their business in a negative manner. Privately owned corporations, being in the business news, sometimes refuse to distribute information due to the potential loss of advertiser revenue or shareholder value which bad publicity may bring (Constitutional Law – Freedom of Speech). Censorship happens all the time, through many different types.
Censorship and First Amendment
Censorship violates our rights as Americans by clearly violating the first amendment. The first amendment guarantees free speech. Censorship is taking away our free speech and telling us what we can and cannot say (Constitutional Law – Freedom of Speech). An act was recently passed, known as the Communication Decency Act (CDA), criminalizes expression based on what certain people find is “decent” or “indecent”. The CDA clearly violates the first amendment for criminalizing expression (“Censorship is Bad” 4). Other forms of expression being blocked could be shown in the example of the government restricting what you see and publish online. Even school and public internet filters are technically violating the first amendment (Kowalski 1). The government blocking certain expression clearly violates the first amendment, and should be stopped (Wesley, 2004).
Advertising hard liquor on TV is a constitutionally protected right, however, the industry must follow strict Federal regulations. An advertisement of distilled spirits can not contain any false or misleading statement that tends to create a misleading impression of the product to the consumer (Constitutional Law – First Amendment). Furthermore, a statement in an advertisement cannot say anything bad about a competitor’s product. Provisions are made also for a statement’s design that cannot contain any material that is obscene or indecent. Federal regulations do not permit claims of distilled spirits having curative or therapeutic qualities. This practice was very popular in the 1800′s and early 1900′s. Traveling salespersons would often stage a show in the middle of small towns claiming a miracle cure for various sicknesses. Most often, the cure would involve alcohol consumption causing the consumer to become intoxicated. This advertising was false and misleading (Baker, 2009).
Flags, seals, coats of arms, crest, and other insignias which can be capable of relating to the American flag or a branch of the armed forces is strictly prohibited. The advertisement cannot mislead the consumer into thinking that the product is endorsed, made, used by, or produced for any of the government, organizations, or families these insignias are associated. The use of deceptive advertising techniques such as subliminal techniques is also prohibited under federal regulations. Subliminal techniques refer to any advertising technique that attempts to convey a message to a person by means of images or sounds that are very brief. These messages usually cannot be perceived at a normal level of awareness according to federal regulations (Kozinski, Alex & Banner, Stuart. 1990).
The federal regulations above are only a select few. There are many constraints on advertising alcohol, promoting the use of electricity or utilities, gambling (Central Hudson Gas & (and) Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York). In addition to advertising constraints there are many prohibited practices concerning bottling and labeling of hard liquor. Consequently, this has prompted that these industries to reevaluate its current marketing situation. The first company to take the leap to TV is Seagram. The Seagram company began advertising 30-second Crown Royal whiskey commercials in Corpus Christi, Texas.
Liquormart, Inc. vs. Rhode Island
The right to advertise is constitutionally protected commercial free speech under the First Amendment. This fact is being upheld in a recent commercial free speech decision by the Supreme Court. The case of 44 Liquormart, Inc. vs. Rhode Island upholds the industry’s commercial free speech rights by insuring that beverage alcohol is allowed the same protection under the First Amendment as other legal products and services (Baker, 2009). In addition, the Courts also ruled that truthful and non-misleading advertising is an essential part of the free enterprise system. Withholding this form of advertising deprives the consumers of knowledge that is needed to make conscious and informed decisions.
In 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “the Twenty-first Amendment does not qualify the constitutional prohibition against laws abridging the freedom of speech embodied in the First Amendment. The Twenty-first Amendment, therefore, cannot save Rhode Island’s ban on liquor price advertising.”
Federal regulations for hard liquor advertising are very strict. However, some lawmakers believe that the regulations are not strict enough. United States Representative Joe Kennedy, Democrat from Massachusetts, is a major player in introducing legislation to further restrict or stop distilled spirits advertising ((Baker, 2009)).
Mr. Kennedy introduced several bills to the 104th Congress. The first bill he introduced is known as the ‘Children’s Protection from Alcohol Advertising Act of 1996′. The purpose of this bill is to establish advertising requirements for alcoholic beverages. Restrictions proposed by this bill are that no alcoholic beverage can be advertised on any audio tape, audio disc, videotape, video arcade game, computer game or in film. Furthermore, no outdoor advertising of alcoholic beverages can be located within one thousand feet of any school, playground, or other public facility where persons under 21 are expected to be present. Another major provision of this bill is to restrict any advertisement on TV between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. to be limited to only a picture of the beverage with factual, objective audio information about the beverage.
A second bill introduced by Mr. Kennedy is the ‘Sensible Advertising and Family Education Act’. The act requires Surgeon General’s Warnings on all media advertisements on TV. Such warnings as ‘Alcohol is a drug and may be addictive’ A third bill introduced is the ‘Alcohol Advertising Accountability Act of 1996′. The bill proposed by Mr. Kennedy and others requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to report annually to the Congress on alcohol advertising. The report consists of alcohol advertising profiles and its effects on consumers. In addition, the above bill will require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a panel to assist in gathering information. The information will consist of the media used by alcohol advertising to reach children. Furthermore, the total expenses for alcoholic beverage advertising in each media such as TV, magazines, and radio ((Wesley, 2004)). The report will also identify the types of themes, especially on TV ads, of advertising beverage alcohol.
The report content will also include a determination of the extent young people are exposed to alcohol advertising. The relationship between alcohol advertising practices and underage drinking will also be evaluated. Consequently, the evaluation of the above factors will include recommendations for legislation by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The most recent bill introduced by Mr. Kennedy is the ‘Just Say No Act’. His undying effort to ban alcohol advertising is enforced in this bill. Mr. Kennedy suggests that distilled spirits on any medium of electronic communication shall be unlawful.
Impact of First Amendment and FTC on Profitability
The market for distilled spirits is shrinking as its loyal customers are aging. The need for a younger market has spawned the industries decision to advertise in order to increase profits.
According to Impact, a publication for the alcoholic beverage industry, distilled spirits will show its first growth in 15 years. The total spirits category is expected to rise 0.3 percent. In addition, the top 25 premium brands are expected to be up 4.9 percent (Meiners, Ringleb & Edwards, 2011). Crain Communications Inc. suggests that ‘the turnaround comes as some liquor marketers are attempting to move into TV.
Corporations are not the only beneficiaries to increasing profits. The media has much more revenue to gain from this venture to TV. However, the major networks, do not want to air hard liquor advertisements. They fear they will lose money from beer and wine marketers.
This is not the case with locally owned affiliates and some cable networks. They will accept part of almost $228 million the industry spends annually on advertising.
The industry not only has to follow strict government regulations, as discussed in the law section of the report, but has its own voluntary Code of Good Practice for distilled spirits advertising. The code has two fundamental principles: ‘ (1) to ensure responsible, tasteful, and dignified advertising and marketing of distilled spirits to adult consumers who choose to drink’, and ‘ (2) to avoid targeting advertising and marketing of distilled spirits to individuals below the purchase age’
The Code of Good Practice contains provisions on responsible content and responsible placement of spirits advertising. A few provisions are firstly, distilled spirits should not be advertised or marketed in any manner directed or primarily intended to appeal to persons below the legal drinking age (Free Speech and Public Utilities). Secondly, distilled spirits advertising should not depict a child or portray objects, images, or cartoon figures that are popular with children. Finally, distilled spirits advertising should portray distilled spirits and drinkers in a responsible manner.
Central Hudson Test
Central Hudson Test is the most commonly used test in order to analyze advertisement or public commercial speech in accordance with respective regulations. There are the following four primary checks in this test;
First Amendment is not violated by commercial speech under regulations only if;
- The speech contains an illegal activity according to regulations,
- Public speech contains deceptive or misleading information,
- Regulation directly supports interest of government in case of speech is restricted in the substantial interest of government,
- In order to serve interest of government, regulation is significantly tailored.
For many years, Supreme Court stated that those speech having purpose of economic transaction or commercial speech will not be regulated under First Amendments. Justification of Supreme Court behind this statement was the power of government board for the regulation of commerce must reasonably and significantly include the authority of regulates speech regarding articles of commerce.
However, in the series of 1970s this statement of Supreme Court changed because of there were many cases that are invalidating the regulations of states regarding products related to drugs and abortion service providers (Constitutional Law – First Amendment). For example, in 1976, State of Virginia Board of Pharmacy, the court was confused while using doctoring of binding precedent in a law which prohibits the advertisement of prices of drugs including prescribed drugs. In accordance of First Amendment, more specifically “right to receive full information” along with right to speak, information of prices of any product especially drugs (as they are expensive products) is very fundamental or important information for customer. After considering all above defined reasons, court finally stated that the substantial interest must be supported by the regulations of state like FTC.
City of Cincinnati v Discovery Network
Case of City of Cincinnati v Discovery Network is a typical case example of commercial speech. For aesthetic reasons, this case was involving a challenge to local ordinance. Ratio decendi of this case was the commercial publication of real estate guides and shippers as primarily banned. There was 3 to 6 law invalidated by the Court by indicating that commercial publications placed over news racks are not uglier than traditional newspapers placed over news racks. Decision of the Court was somewhat related to strict scrutiny based on content.
Central Hudson Gas & Electric v Public Service Commission
A test in order to evaluate the regulations of commercial speech was announced by the Court in case of Gas & Electric v Public Service Commission. And this Central Hudson Test was further appreciated in dealing of subsequent cases. Constitutionality of regulations is recognized by the Central Hudson test which restricts the advertisement of deceptive information or related to the product and service of illegal activity. For restrictions on commercial speech the requirement of Central Hudson test is that the regulation having direct and important interest showed by the government should be more necessary as compared with the restriction of such speech (Central Hudson Gas & (and) Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York).
Liquormart v Rhode Island
In 1996, decision of this case was subsequently resulting in the violation of state law which prohibits the advertisement of prices of alcohol in various significant aspects. First of all, court rejected the suggestion very emphatically; the statement of Supreme Court made over a decade earlier which gives more freedom to state to regulate the advertisement regarding vices than various another economic activities. Under 21st Amendment, the Court can also define the power to completely ban the product does not complied with the less power which imposes restriction over the advertisement of that product. Finally, in case of 44Liquormart, various justices questioned either the restriction test on non-deceptive information in commercial speech can be used as the intermediate scrutiny form as per the suggestion of Central Hudson, which indicates that the Court might decide somewhat near to strict scrutiny as applied in the regulations of content speech.
Cohen vs. California
One case that was brought to the United States Supreme court was the case of Cohen vs. California (Kozinski & Banner, 1990). In this case, freedom of speech was the issue to be addressed in conjunction with the first amendment. This case was argued February 22, 1971 and decided upon on June 7, 1971. On April 26, 1968 Paul Robert Cohen was in the corridor of the Los Angeles County Courthouse wearing a jacket that said “Fuck the Draft”. The words were clearly visible and there were numerous women and children all around him in the courthouse. Cohen was arrested for wearing this jacket purposely in front of everyone and being in the courthouse. Cohen admitted that he wore the jacket purposely to inform the public of the way he felt against the Draft and the Vietnam War. He was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in prison.
This case needed to be heard in the United States Supreme Court because Cohen’s lawyer appealed this case as Cohen and the lawyer believed that his right to freedom of speech as guaranteed in the first amendment had been dishonored. The state of California lacked the power to penalize Cohen without showing a reason to promote disobedience or disruption to the draft with the underlying content of the message on the back of his jacket. Cohen was convicted for violating the California Penal Code section 415 which prohibits maliciously and willfully disturbing another person by using offensive words in a public place which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction. Justice Harlan stated that the state of California cannot make a public display of a four letter word a criminal offense according to the first and fourteenth amendment. In Justice Blackmun’s opinion, Cohen’s actions were mainly in the act of conduct and little of speech. With this in mind Cohen was convicted for disturbing the peace.
Brown vs. Louisiana
In the case of Brown vs. Louisiana, freedom of speech, assembly, and freedom to petition were the rights in conjunction with the first amendment to be addressed. On March 7, 1964, Mr. Henry Brown and four young African American males went into the Audubon Regional Library in Clinton, Louisiana to request the book “The Story of the Negro”. The book was not available at that time so the Librarian, Mrs. Katie Reeves, advised Mr. Brown that she would request the book from the state library and he could either pick it up or it would be mailed to him (Baker, 2009). She informed him also that “his point of service was a bookmobile or that it could be mailed to him”. (Justia) The Audubon Regional Library did not serve blacks. Mrs. Reeves thought that the men would leave after that but when they didn’t, she asked them to leave. The men refused to go; opting instead to silently remain in the library.
About ten to twenty-five minutes after they arrived at the library, the sheriff and deputies arrived and asked the men to leave. They refused and in turn were arrested. The sheriff and deputies had previously been notified earlier that day that some members of the Congress of Equality were going to sit in at the library. The sheriff had been watching for them to go into the library and when he saw them enter, he called his deputies for backup. The men were arrested for not leaving a public building when asked to do so by an officer. Mr. Brown and the other four men were found guilty on March 25, 1964. Brown was sentenced to ninety days in jail and the other four men were sentenced to twenty-five days in jail.
According to the Louisiana Law, their convictions could not be appealed. There were no errors found by the Supreme Court therefore, the court granted certiorari. After reviewing the records, Justice Fortas determined that the men should not have been convicted because their protest was peaceful and blacks could not be denied access to the library because whites were allowed inside. He realized that the men were quiet and peaceful and were not being disruptive or disturbing anyone by being in the library. Justice Fortas made the decision that the men’s rights to the first and fourteenth amendment had been violated.
Zacchini vs. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Company
In the case of Zacchini vs. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Company, freedom of press was the right in conjunction with the first amendment to be addressed. This case was argued on April 25, 1977 and decided upon on June 28, 1977. On August 30, 1972 Hugo Zacchini, an entertainer, performed a human cannonball being shot from a cannon two hundred feet into a net at a county fair in Burton, Ohio. That day, a reporter from Scripps-Howard broadcasting company attended the county fair carrying a small video camera with him. Zacchini saw the reporter and asked him politely not to record the performance. The reporter granted Zacchini’s wish that day. However, the next day, the reporter came back and filmed the entire performance. The film clip was aired on the eleven o’clock news that night (Wesley, 2004).
Zacchini brought this action for damages and was unhappy that this performance had only been performed by his family for the past 50 years and that his father invented this act. He was upset that the performance had been commercialized and shown on television without his consent. A summary judgment was granted by the trial court. The majority held that Zacchini’s complaint was justified. The judges agreed that the first amendment did not give the press the right to show the entire performance on a news program without permission from and without compensating Zacchini. The Supreme Court of Ohio granted a certiorari for the unresolved issue of Zacchini’s alleged infringement of his state laws right to publicity. Justice White came to the conclusion that with everything in mind, regardless of the State of Ohio’s law giving privileges to the press in the circumstances in this case, that the first and fourteenth amendment does not require the state to do so.
Edenfield v. Fane
In this case, Scott Fane is a respondent who is licensed by CPA to practice accountancy in Florida. Before 1985, Fane has his own accountancy CPA practice in New Jersey, specialized in taxation advice to SMEs. He was used to do unsolicited calls to make his client. However, under New Jersey Law, this type of unsolicited or uninvited was permitted (Constitutional Law – Freedom of Speech). After shifting to Florida he tried to build same practice but he could not do so due to the Florida Board of Accountancy that have comprehensive rule which prohibits CPAs to engage in personal or direct or uninvited solicitation, provided that the entity or person is not a current client of CPA.
To determine the personal request of the CPAs may be prohibited according to the Central Hudson Test, we must ask whether the degree of restriction on speech in defense of reasonable proportion to the interest or interest of the State in prohibiting is essential, whether the challenged regulation to achieve these interests in a substantial and direct. Although we conclude that the asserted interests are substantial Council, the Council has failed to prove that it bans the application to achieve those interests. In processing first’s inquiry, interest of the State must be defined. Unlike rational basis review, the Central Hudson standard does not allow us to replace the precise interests put forward by the State with other suppositions.
Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico
1948, Puerto Rico’s Games of Chance Act (the Act), under this act gambling became legal but only at licensed places just to promote tourism, and also provides that “[not] the gaming room are allowed to advertise or otherwise offer them opportunities to the public of Puerto Rico . “The implementation of the ban advertising of gambling parlors of the public in Puerto Rico, but allow limited advertising through mass media advertising outside of Puerto Rico (Free Speech and Public Utilities). Appellant, franchising partnerships for a casino in Puerto Rico, was fined by appellee public corporation that has the right to manage the Act for violation of restrictions on advertising in the law and regulations.
Appellant then filed suit against appellee in the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the law and regulations, and vestibular and how it applies to the defendant on appeal, shall be suppressed commercial speech in violation of the First Amendment and equal protection and due process guarantees of the Federal Constitution. It was held that the restrictions on advertising were unconstitutional as applied to the applicant’s past behavior, but the court then adopted the restriction of the construction of the law and regulations, stating that they are prohibited local advertising addressed to inviting residents of Puerto Rico to visit casinos, but are not sure of the local advertising addressed to tourists, although it may chance to reach the attention of residents. The court then ruled that, based on its construction of the laws.
In accordance with this administrative interpretation, travel agency assessed additional fines on the company. Court ordered the applicant to pay the outstanding total of $ 1,500 in fines on March 18, 1979, or gambling franchise would not be renewed. Appellant continued to protest fines, but eventually paid them without obtaining judicial review of the Tourism Company. In July 1981 the applicant was again penalized for violation of restrictions on advertising. Faced with another threatened non-renewal his gambling franchise, the applicant paid a $ 500 fine under protest.
The citizen’s of the United States of America are guaranteed basic freedoms by the Constitution which maintains and protects the citizen’s rights. However, the citizens also have a responsibility to be involved and educate themselves as to what is going on in the United States and since the citizen’s were given the right to vote, they should all vote as every person’s vote counts. If the people do not vote, they do not have a right to complain if they are not happy with the people running the government. The people who run the United States Government play a very important role in the lives of the American citizens and the citizens have a responsibility to make sure that government officials are doing their job and upholding the Constitution. The citizens are also given the responsibility to appear in court for jury duty when summoned.
The cases discussed above are good examples of how the Commercial Speech Doctrine has evolved and how FTC uses various tools to regulate advertising and commercial speech for vice products. Each case is recorded and kept on file for future reference in the event another case similar to one of these arises so that the court may fall back on these cases for reference. The Constitution guarantees certain rights to the citizens; however, the Supreme Court is in place to make any decisions to make an exception in the Constitution in order to protect the United States citizens. This happens usually when people abuse their rights and commit crimes.
Kozinski, Alex & Banner, Stuart. (1990). Who’s Afraid of Commercial Speech? Virginia Law Review. Vol. 76, No. 4, pp. 627-653.
Baker, C. Edwin, (2009). “The First Amendment and Commercial Speech” (2008). Scholarship at Penn Law. Paper 182. Retrieved from http://lsr.nellco.org/upenn_wps/182, on 31st March 2012.
Wesley, Earnhardt, J. (2004). Nike, Inc. v. Kasky: A Golden Opportunity to Define Commercial Speech – Why Wouldn’t the Supreme Court Finally Just Do It. North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 82, Issue 2, pp. 797-810
Meiners, Roger E., Ringleb, Al H. & Edwards, Frances L. (2011). The Legal Environment of Business. Published by Cengage Learning, ISBN0538473991, 9780538473996.
Dennis, Everette E., Donald M. Gillmor and David Grey, 1978. Justice Hugo Black and the First Amendment. Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Emord, Jonathan W. Freedom, 1991, Technology, and the First Amendment. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.
Epps, Garrett, 2008. The First Amendment, Freedom of the Press: Its Constitutional History and the Contemporary Debate. Amberst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Martenson R. (1987), Advertising Strategies and Information Content in American and Swedish Advertising. A Comparative Content Analysis in Cross-Cultural Copy Research, in International Journal of Advertising, (6), 133-144.
Zandpour, F., Chang, C., & Catalano, J., (1992), Stories, Symbols, and Straight Talk: A Comparative Analysis of French, Taiwanese, and U.S. TV Commercials, Journal of Advertising Research, (January/February), 25-38.
Pollay, R. W., (1983), Measuring the Cultural Values Manifest in Advertising, in Current Issues and Research in Advertising, J. H. Leigh & C. R. Martin, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, p. 71-92.
Doherty, Francis, 1992. A Study in Eighteenth-Century Advertising Methods: The Anodyne Necklace. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Vile, John, David Hudson, Jr., and David Schultz, 2009. Encyclopedia of the First Amendment. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Central Hudson Gas & (and) Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York. Ban on Advertising Promoting Energy Usage Violations First Amendment.
Constitutional Law – Freedom of Speech – Commercial Speech Doctrine – Use of Sex-Designated Classified Advertising Column Headings.
Constitutional Law – First Amendment – Freedom of Speech Protection for Commercial Advertising [legislation]
Free Speech and Public Utilities: Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Commission [legislation]
First Amendment Restrictions on the FTC’s Regulation of Advertising [legislation]