1. Limits to the Freedom of Speech
Commercial Speech
Limits to the Freedom of Speech

2. Commercial Speech
Most advertising considered commercial speech, not individual speech
Not fully protected by 1st Amendment
Used to receive no protection by courts
Assumed gov’t could regulate commercial speech same way it regulates business
Receives some protection today

3. VA State Board of Pharmacy v. VA Citizens consumer council (1976)
Virginia passed law making it unprofessional to advertise prescription drug prices
Concerned that it might lead to aggressive price competition, shoddy service
SCOTUS struck down law
Argued society’s interest in info about products > state’s interest in regulation advertising of prescription drugs

4. VA State Board of Pharmacy v. VA Citizens consumer council (1976)
“As to the particular consumer’s interest in the free flow of commercial information, that interest may be as keen, if not keener by far, than his interest in the day’s most urgent political debate… Advertising, however tasteless and excessive it sometimes may seem, is nonetheless dissemination of information as to who is producing and selling what product for what reason, and at what price.”

5. Government & Commercial Speech
In general, courts allow gov’t to ban commercial speech that…
Is false or misleading
Provides info about illegal products
If neither exists, gov’t limited in ways to regulate
Businesses allowed to exaggerate some
Called “puffery”
Disclaimers often included
Minute Maid: “Pomegrante blueberry” juice contained minimal pomegranate and blueberry juice. Mostly apple juice.
Listerine: Helps prevent colds
Mini-wheats: Improves kids attentiveness by 20%. Only 1-in-9 kids saw such results in clinical studies.

6. Rubin v. Coors brewing company (1995)
Gov’t banned alcoholic content info on beer cans
Wanted to prevent companies from competing against each other in “strength wars”
Coors sued, arguing ban violated company’s free speech
SCOTUS agreed
For gov’t to regulate commercial speech, gov’t must have substantial interest that regulation DIRECTLY affects
Argued ban would not sufficiently advance gov’t interest in preventing alcoholism