Speech the Central Hudson Test Term Paper

Excerpt from Term Paper :

The state attempted to justify the law by arguing that the ban on advertising reduced competition in sale of liquor, which resulted in higher prices and reduced consumption. The court ruled that they were not going to restrict truthful speech about a legal product on something that they saw as speculation and conjecture (Pember & Calvert, 2005).

Central Hudson Test Effects

Unsolicited Advertising

From the beginning of federal attempts to restrict unsolicited phone calls, the government has asserted that its primary interest lies in protecting citizens from invasion of privacy. Three different federal appeals courts have upheld the TCPA and the TSR in four separate challenges. These courts have all shown judicial deference in their consideration of the third part of Central Hudson, relying upon legislative findings and "simple common sense" to support the government interest in shielding citizens from invasions of privacy by the telemarketer, saving them from the cost-shifting of unsolicited fax advertisements and mitigating the problem of potentially deceptive and abusive telemarketing calls (Erickson, 2006).

Restrictions on Free Speech

In Hudson, in order for commercial speech to be protected by the First Amendment it must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. It must be determined whether the declared

Governmental interest to be provided by the restriction on commercial speech is substantial. If both questions have positive answers, it must then be decided whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest (Samoriski, 1999).

The government's interest in regulating commercial speech is considerable if they can show that the harms it seeks to prevent are real, and that the restriction will in fact alleviate these harms to some degree. To be able to show that the regulation is not more wide-ranging than necessary, the regulation must be narrowly drawn, but it does not have to be the least restrictive option available. The government must also show that there is a fit between the means and the ends that have been chosen to accomplish them (Samoriski, 1999).

References

Boedecker, K., Morgan, F., & Wright, L. (1995). The evolution of first amendment protection for commercial speech. Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 38. Retrieved from Business Source

Complete database.

Cohn, W. (2009). How Free is Free Speech?. New Presence: The Prague Journal of Central

European Affairs, 12(3), 23-27. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Erickson, E. (2006). Disfavored Advertising: Telemarketing, Junk Faxes and the Commercial

Speech Doctrine. Communication Law & Policy, 11(4), 589-630.

doi:10.1207/s15326926clp1104_5.

Pember, D., & Calvert, C. (2005). Mass Media Law. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Samoriski, J. (1999). Unsolicited commercial e-mail, the Internet and…

Sources Used in Document:

References

Boedecker, K., Morgan, F., & Wright, L. (1995). The evolution of first amendment protection for commercial speech. Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 38. Retrieved from Business Source

Complete database.

Cohn, W. (2009). How Free is Free Speech?. New Presence: The Prague Journal of Central

European Affairs, 12(3), 23-27. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.

Cite This Term Paper:

"Speech The Central Hudson Test" (2010, March 03) Retrieved March 30, 2020, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/speech-the-central-hudson-test-282

"Speech The Central Hudson Test" 03 March 2010. Web.30 March. 2020. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/speech-the-central-hudson-test-282>

"Speech The Central Hudson Test", 03 March 2010, Accessed.30 March. 2020,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/speech-the-central-hudson-test-282