3 ms·

When was the last time you saw a cigarette ad on TV? Commercial speech in the United States has limitations. Historically commercial speech was not protected b

When was the last time you saw a cigarette ad on TV? Commercial speech in the United States has limitations. Historically commercial speech was not protected by the 1st amendment. Protections and limitations have largely been established over the past 50 years in Supreme Court rulings [0]. [0] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/939/corporate-speech https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/939/corporate-speec...

tzs 6y ago
The comparison to cigarettes isn't very convincing. To legally justify a of regulation of commercial speech, the government must show that it is to directly advance a substantial government interest and it is no more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. Cigarettes physically harm pretty much all of their users, and they are very addicting leading to psychological and financial harm to a large number of users too, and they are available over the counter with no more than an age check to try to keep them out of the hands of non-adults. It's fairly easy to find a substantial government interest in the physical and psychological health of the population, and regulating the spread of something addicting that directly harms that interest directly advances that interest and doesn't seem to be going too far. Prescription drugs cannot even be sold until the government approves them, and even then they can only be sold if prescribed by a doctor. Those measures should already keep them out of the hands of those who would be harmed by them, so it is hard to see what substantial government interest a TV ad ban would directly further that couldn't be better addressed without restricting speech (e.g., limitation on who doctors can prescribe the drug to). I'm not saying that it wouldn't be possible to sufficient justify a TV ad ban on prescription drugs. Just that it is not anywhere near as easy as it is for cigarettes.
- stjohnswarts 6y ago
  It's incredibly convincing given what happened with opiates and the current hundreds of thousands dead from overdoses over the past 20 years or so.

tzs 6y ago

The comparison to cigarettes isn't very convincing. To legally justify a of regulation of commercial speech, the government must show that it is to directly advance a substantial government interest and it is no more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. Cigarettes physically harm pretty much all of their users, and they are very addicting leading to psychological and financial harm to a large number of users too, and they are available over the counter with no more than an age check to try to keep them out of the hands of non-adults. It's fairly easy to find a substantial government interest in the physical and psychological health of the population, and regulating the spread of something addicting that directly harms that interest directly advances that interest and doesn't seem to be going too far. Prescription drugs cannot even be sold until the government approves them, and even then they can only be sold if prescribed by a doctor. Those measures should already keep them out of the hands of those who would be harmed by them, so it is hard to see what substantial government interest a TV ad ban would directly further that couldn't be better addressed without restricting speech (e.g., limitation on who doctors can prescribe the drug to). I'm not saying that it wouldn't be possible to sufficient justify a TV ad ban on prescription drugs. Just that it is not anywhere near as easy as it is for cigarettes.

stjohnswarts 6y ago
It's incredibly convincing given what happened with opiates and the current hundreds of thousands dead from overdoses over the past 20 years or so.