3 ms·
Valentine v. Chrestensen: First Amendment does not protect “purely commercial advertising.”
by sjtgraham 10y ago
Valentine v. Chrestensen: First Amendment does not protect “purely commercial advertising.”
- count 10y agoWhat if they actually love the product, AND happens to be paid for it? ie: already drink a specific type of liquor, liquor company finds out and offers to sponsor them...
- cgriswald 10y agoWhich probably makes this difficult to enforce. Agent meets with advertiser. No promises are made. Celebrity posts about loving product. Then advertiser sponsors them. Defense: "I like the product and was doing this to help get the job."
- rayiner 10y agoThat case was overturned by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_State_Pharmacy_Board_v._Virginia_Citizens_Consumer_Council https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_State_Pharmacy_Board_....
- sjtgraham 10y agoThanks. Glad to have an actual lawyer appear at times like these :) So is this legal?
- rayiner 10y agoRight now the boundary for restrictions on commercial speech seems to lie right around labeling for GMOs. Calorie labeling is okay because its purely informational, factually neutral, and has a direct link to a real concrete government interest. GMO labeling is on the border because there is a strong political element to it, and there is no proof GMOs (unlike too many calories) are actually bad and therefore it does not implicate a government interest. I would think the FTC's action is substantially over that line.