Writing Assignment

Writing Assignment - John Kilzi BUL4320 Fall 2009 Writing...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
John Kilzi BUL4320 – Fall 2009 Writing Assignment November 18, 2009 The four cases that were chosen were: (1) Salib v. City of Mesa, (2) Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticut, (3) Carvel v. Noonan, and (4) Novak v. Credit Bureau Collection Service. In the case of Salib v. City of Mesa, Edward Salib was a business owner who put up large signs in on his storefront windows to advertise his business in Mesa, Arizona. He had violated the city’s Sign Code by covering more than 30% of his windows with signs and was ordered by the Courts to bring them down. Although he thought that this violated his First Amendment rights, the Courts looked to see if there was a precedent, and in this case it was the Supreme Court case Central Hudson which stated that commercial speech that concerns unlawful activity or is misleading is not protected by the First Amendment. The case does not state whether Mr. Salib’s signs were unlawful or misleading, however, the government may regulate commercial speech that does not fall into either category, provided that the rules are reasonable and directed to a legitimate goal by satisfying a three-prong test. Under the second prong of Central Hudson, the government must demonstrate that the challenged regulation advances its interest in a direct and material way. Salib argued that no studies were conducted to determine any problems with the signs and how the Sign Code could fix that. Nevertheless, the constitution doesn’t need a formal study to be put into effect. The Courts also made sure to only decide if the 30% figure that was adopted by the Sign Code was a reasonable rule and directed at a legitimate goal, not to choose any balance between the two parties or choose a more optimal percentage. This case is geared directly to the real business world as it is a business world case. Plenty of corporations must deal with their own “Sign Code” in their respective city and any local or state government can regulate the commercial speech of a company. In the case of Carvel v. Noonan, Carvel sold its ice cream only through franchised stores. But
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 4

Writing Assignment - John Kilzi BUL4320 Fall 2009 Writing...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online