Commercial Speech...What is it?

Commercial speech is speech or writing made on behalf of a business with the goal of generating income or profit, according to the law. It is usually economic in nature and aims to encourage customers to buy the company's goods or service.

Commercial speech has been one of the most contested and contentious First

Amendment issues in the last four decades. Historically, as the Supreme Court stated in Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942), commercial speech was not protected under the First Amendment. This category, which included commercial advertising, promises, and solicitations, was regulated heavily to protect customers and prevent fraud.

One of the issues that has been addressed in evaluating whether commercial speech is protected under the First Amendment is how far a state can go in controlling alcohol marketing. The Supreme Court, for example, knocked down the rule in 1996 after applying a four-pronged approach that took into account the government's interest in limiting pricing information in alcohol marketing. It wasn't until the beginning of 1970 that the Supreme Court realized that commercial speech is entitled to First Amendment protection.

To fully comprehend the dispute, you must first understand how the Supreme Court has chosen to define the term "commercial speech." Today, commercial speech is protected under the First Amendment if it is not deceptive or misleading, and it does not promote an illegal product or service. Despite the fact that the federal government cannot regulate how businesses market their products to consumers, they do have a heavy influence in regulating commercial speech through government agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).

Other categories of speech, such as political or artistic expression, have continued to get more protection from the Supreme Court; nonetheless, commercial speech is not given the same significance as these other types of speech. Commercial speech, in my opinion, should be just as essential as political speech. We cannot enable our government to regulate an organization's messaging and products. The more government regulation we tolerate, the less freedom Americans essentially acquire.

Consider Canada, where corporations are prohibited from advertising to children under the age of 13 under Quebec law, in an effort to reduce fast food consumption in the country. Because of the uproar, the Campbell Soup Company and Kellogg's Brand have been forced to stop running educational programs in Quebec schools.

Despite the fact that the United States has not yet attained that level of regulation, the federal government does regulate the alcohol, firearms, and tobacco sectors. To consume alcohol, you must be 21 years old according to federal legislation. The Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) of 1990 made it illegal to intentionally possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school zone, regardless of whether the property is public, private, or parochial. Finally, the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 mandates that every cigarette carton have the warning “Caution: Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health.”

In the end, the American people must decide whether the federal government is wielding excessive power.