Commercial Speech Cases

VALENTINE v CHRESTENSEN (USSC 1942)

(NYC Handbill Ordinance prohibited the distribution of commercial handbills)

• "[T]he Constitution imposes no...restraint on government as respects purely commercial speech.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

"That the Times was paid for publishing the advertisement is as immaterial in this connection as is the fact that newspapers and books are sold....[The paid advertisement]"communicated information, expressed opinion, recited grievances, protested claimed abuses, and sought financial support on behalf of a movement whose existence and objectives are matters of the highest public interest and concern."

PITTSBURG PRESS v PITTSBURG COMM. (USSC 1973)

(City ordinance banned "sex-designated" help wanted ads.)

"Any First Amendment interest which might be served by advertising an ordinary commercial proposal and which might arguably outweigh the governmental interest supporting the regulation is altogether absent when the commercial activity itself is illegal and the restriction on advertising is incidental to a valid limitation on economic activity."

• Advertising "aids" an illegal activity.
• Regulations are incidental to valid limitations on economic activity.

BIGELOW v VIRGINIA (USSC 1975)

(Advertising of legal abortion services)

• "Our cases, however, clearly establish that speech is not stripped of First Amendment protection merely because it appears in that form."

• The Court found that the "clear public interest" in the advertised information outweighed the state's interest in regulation.

VIRGINIA ST. BD. OF PHARMACY v VIRGINIA CONSUMER COUNCIL (USSC 1976)

(State law banned drug price advertising)

LINMARK ASSOC. v CITY OF WILLINGBORO (USSC 1977)

(City ordinance banned on-site house for sale signs.)

The constitutional defect in this ordinance, however, is far more basic. The Township Council here, like the Virginia Assembly in Virginia Pharmacy Bd., acted to prevent its residents from obtaining certain information. That information, which pertains to sales activity in Willingboro, is of vital interest to Willingboro residents, since it may bear on one of the most important decisions they have a right to make: where to live and raise their families. The Council has sought to restrict the free flow of these data because it fears that otherwise homeowners will make decisions inimical to what the Council views as the homeowners' self-interest and the corporate interest of the township: they will choose to leave town....

Virginia Pharmacy Bd. denies government such sweeping powers.

CAREY v. POPULATION SERVICES INT'L (USSC 1977)

(New York State law banned contraceptive advertising.)

BATES v STATE BAR OF ARIZONA (USSC 1977)

(State law banned all advertising by lawyers.)

CENTRAL HUDSON G&E v P.S.C. OF NEW YORK (USSC 1980)

(State ban on promotional advertising for use of electricity by electric utilities.)

Central Hudson Cases