Class Notes (1,100,000)
US (470,000)
UM (4,000)
COM (40)
COM 250 (20)
Lecture 18

COM 250 Lecture Notes - Lecture 18: Pacifica Foundation, Equal Protection Clause, Institute For Operations Research And The Management Sciences


Department
Communication
Course Code
COM 250
Professor
Terilli Samuel
Lecture
18

This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 3 pages of the document.
COM$250$
Class$18$
Commercial$Speech$
$
The$complexity$of$advertising:$
o A$history$of$negativity$
o Its$principal$objective$is$to$sell$products$
o A$history$of$exaggeration$
o A$history$of$lies$and$false$claims;$long-lasting$effects$
o Advertising$that$misleads$the$consumer$
o Advertising$that$deceives$the$consumer$$
o Advertising$that$preys$on$the$young,$the$gullible,$the$person$in$need$
Advertising$and$speech:$
o Can$advertising$be$considered$speech?$
o Is$advertising$“good”$speech$or$“bad”$speech?$
§ Good$speech$informs$the$customer,$spurs$commerce,$creates$jobs,$good$
for$society$
§ Bad$speech$does$not$advance$societal$interests$
o The$First$Amendment$is$about$“exposition$of$ideas”$and$determining$truth.$Some$
kinds$of$speech$receive$a$lower$level$of$protection$(FCC$v.$Pacifica$Foundation).$
o “Commercial$advertising—indeed,$any$sort$of$commercial$speech—is$less$fully$
protected$than$other$speech,$because$it$generally$does$not$communicate$ideas$
and$thus$is$not$directly$related$to$the$central$purpose$of$the$First$Amendment...”$
Judge$Skelly$Right.$
Valentine$vs.$Chrestensen$(1942):$
o In$Valentine(v.(Chrestensen$an$entrepreneur$in$New$York$City$began$to$distribute$
leaflets$that$contained$an$advertisement$for$a$commercial$exhibition$of$a$former$
Navy$submarine.$$
o On$one$side$of$the$leaflets$was$the$advertisement$and$on$the$other$side$was$a$
message$that$protested$the$city's$denial$of$wharfage$facilities$for$the$exhibition.$
The$New$York$City$police$restrained$the$entrepreneur$from$distributing$his$
handbills$because$the$distribution$violated$a$sanitary$code$provision$that$forbade$
the$dispensing$of$advertising$matter$in$the$streets.$$
o The$entrepreneur$sought$to$enjoin$the$police$from$enforcing$the$statute.$District$
court$granted$an$injunction$and$the$court$of$appeals$affirmed.$The$Supreme$
Court,$however,$unanimously$reversed$and$refused$to$enjoin$the$enforcement$of$
the$statute.$
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version