Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elonka (talk | contribs) at 05:46, 18 September 2006 (tagging as uncategorized using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not been added to any content categories. Please help out by adding categories to it so that it can be listed with similar articles.

Commercial Speech is an expression related solely to the economic interest of the speaker and the speaker's audience. It comes from Supreme Court rulings in the United States. In more plain english, "Commercial Speech" is 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.

The idea of "Commercial Speech" was first introduced by the Supreme Court when it upheld Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942). In upholding the regulation, the Supreme Court said, "We are … clear that the Constitution imposes … no restraint on government as respects purely commercial advertising."

In a 1978 decision, Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n, the Court offered this defense:

 We have not discarded the "common-sense" distinction between speech proposing a
 commercial transaction, which occurs in an area traditionally subject to
 government regulation, and other varieties of speech. To require a parity of
 constitutional protection for commercial and noncommercial speech alike could
 invite dilution, simply by a leveling process, of the force of the Amendment's
 guarantee with respect to the latter kind of speech. Rather than subject the
 First Amendment to such a devitalization, we instead have afforded commercial
 speech a limited measure of protection, commensurate with its subordinate
 position in the scale of First Amendment values, while allowing modes of
 regulation that might be impermissible in the realm of noncommercial expression.

There are those on the Supreme Court that disagree with this "common-sense" distinction, though. Justice Clarence Thomas replied, in 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996), that "I do not see a philosophical or historical basis for asserting that 'commercial' speech is of 'lower value' than 'noncommercial' speech."

Federal judge Alex Kozinski stated, in regards to the 1942 ruling, "the Supreme Court plucked the commercial speech doctrine out of thin air."

See also

Free Speech

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

External links

• Commercial Speech in regard to KFC
• History of Commercial Speech
• Stay Free Magazine on the Cost of Free Speech