commercial free speech practice

commercial free speech practice - In this case Arizona has...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Andrew Lazarow Commercial free speech practice problem Does the Tuscan, Arizona Ordinance violate the commercial free speech act that is guaranteed under the first amendment in the U.S. Constitution? The first amendment guarantees free speech for individuals, but allows regulation on free speech for businesses. If one of the three following rules are false then the Tuscan, Arizona law does violate the commercial free speech act because the Arizona Ordinance is unfairly regulating businesses rights for free speech: Restriction on commercial speech must seek to implement a substantial government interest meaning protecting minors, societal aesthetics, and safety. Restriction on commercial speech must directly advance that interest meaning it has to make a big difference not a small one. For example you can’t just remove a couple grains of sand from a beach. And restriction on commercial speech must go no further than necessary meaning if the restriction can be more narrowly implemented, do it.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: In this case Arizona has a substantial government interest in making highways more aesthetically pleasing and to reduce the traffic billboards can cause. By getting rid of most of the billboards surrounding the highways Arizona is getting rid of the unattractiveness caused by the signs and reducing the traffic caused by people slowing down to read the signs. Because Arizona is allowing on site signs from business to be displayed it is possible that Arizona is not directly advancing their interest. At the same time I feel that getting rid of commercial billboards is going further than necessary to aesthetically please the people of Tuscan. In conclusion the Tuscan, Arizona law does violate the commercial free speech act in the U.S. constitution because the restriction on the commercial free speech act does not directly advance their interest and it does go further than necessary....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 01/18/2012 for the course LPP 255 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at Syracuse.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online