4 ms·

The court engaged in a complex analysis to determine the appropriate framework for analyzing this specific first amendment advertising case. This shows there i

• camgunz 4y ago
  I didn't delve into the opinions but it seems like the decision relied on basic content-neutral doctrine. That's par for the course 1A stuff.
  • jrochkind1 4y ago
    "par for the course 1A stuff" suggests that advertisements actually ARE first ammendment protected in the USA. Because... they are. Original commenter suggested they were not even considered "speech" and were not, which is not accurate description of the law. (In fact, though, advertisements are not treated exactly the same way as other kinds of speech, say, political speech. The bar is different, and more regulation of advertisements is allowed than, say, political speech. Who knows if the current supreme court and other courts will change that though, they are changing a lot, often in favor of protections for commerce).
    • galaxyLogic 4y ago
      There's a fine line between free speech and fraud