CNJ303Exam2part2

CNJ303Exam2part2 - o Are purely commercial messages are...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
o Are purely commercial messages are protected by the 1 st Amendment? Yes\ o Landmark case? Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia State Citizens Council (1976) Court addressed issue of 1 st Amendment protection for purely commercial advertisements o Virginia statute prohibited licensed pharmacists from advertising the price of prescription drugs. o State pharmacy said restriction was necessary for several reasons: Without the ban on ads, pharmacists would have to participate in aggressive price competition, which would distract them from their important jobs as dispensers of drugs, possibly endangering consumers’ health and harming the pharmacists’ status as professionals. Advertising would encourage consumers to shop around for the best prices rather than develop a trusting relationship with one pharmacist. o What 1942 Supreme Court cases did the landmark case flatly torpedo? Valentine v. Chrestensen What issue was the focus? It was unprofessional conduct for a licensed pharmacist to advertise the prices of prescription drugs Chrestensen owned an old Navy submarine which he moored at a state pier in NYC East River. He distributed handbills to pedestrians advertising tours of the submarine. City police told him to stop giving out the fliers because he was violating the city’s sanitary code, which prohibited the distribution of handbills for commercial advertising. The ordinance only allowed handbills providing info or public protest to be distributed on city streets. Chrestensen decided to print a new batch of handbills because of this. One side had a message criticizing the City Dock Department for refusing him wharf age facilities at a city pier; the other side had original info promoting tours of his submarine (without mention of the fee for the tour). Police officials said he was STILL in violation of the ordinance He sued the police commissioner, seeking to enjoin the police from interfering with his distribution of advertising and claiming that the Constitution protected him. **The Supreme Court upheld the city’s ordinance saying it did not violate Chresetsen’s freedoms of speech or press. Court said previous decisions made it clear that the streets are proper places for expressing opinion and spreading information, but that the government could regulate purely commercial advertising.
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
*The Supreme Court AGREED and for the FIRST TIME, they recognized that the 1 st Amendment protects purely commercial advertising. o The Central Hudson Test (first used in 1980) is the 4 part test that courts apply to determine the extent of the protection for commercial speech o Courts must consider each of the following: Is the ad true and not misleading and does it advertise a legal product or service? Is the asserted governmental interest substantial?
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/07/2008 for the course CNJ 303 taught by Professor Driscoll during the Spring '07 term at University of Miami.

Page1 / 5

CNJ303Exam2part2 - o Are purely commercial messages are...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

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