October 25, 2009

My First Blog: How Protection of Commercial Speech Came About

Hey everyone! Thanks for checking out my first blog! I have created this blog for a class I'm currently enrolled in; New Communication Technology. We learn about different forms of technology and how they relate to modern day communication. My blog will focus on advertising regulations in the U.S. and how our laws apply to this ongoing issue. Please feel free to post any comments or questions you have! Thanks again, and have fun!


Commercial Speech is something that all of us are exposed to on a daily basis, but may not be fully aware of its presence at times. This type of dialogue is defined by Straubhaar and LaRose’s Media Now as speech “…which advertises a product or service for profit or for a business purpose” (439). TV advertisements, printed magazine spreads, and even beer bottle labels are all examples of the use of commercial speech.


For years, commercial speech was not protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution. For those not familiar, the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” In 1976 the case of the Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council changed the notion of commercial speech protection. A resident of Virginia, along with two non-profit organizations that represented consumers, filed suit against the State. The Virginia State Board of Pharmacy had placed a regulation on pharmacists, banning them from advertising prescription drug prices. The Court ruled that this commercial speech was to be protected under the First Amendment. It was determined that the pharmacist had no intentions of misleading consumers, but only wanted to report factual price differences. Our society is based on the free flow of information in a competitive market. Pharmacists have every right to advertise their products and their prices.


The significance of this case is virtually undeniable. It was the first of many to come that ruled to protect commercial speech under the First Amendment. Although, this case did not create guidelines to specify what constituted protection of commercial speech; it set an example for other courts to follow.


References:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

Siegel, Paul. “Regulation of Adverting.” Cases in Communication Law. 2008. New York: Rowman & Littlefield

Publishers, INC.

Straubhaar. “Media Policy and Law.” Media Now. 2008. USA: Thomas Wadsworth.






2 comments:

  1. I think there is a fine line with this type of case. They don't show the prices of prescription medication yet they can advertise them to a set of vague symptoms and make people think they have some wild sickness when in fact, the symptoms could be from anything. I think that there is no need to advertise medicines for specific illnesses. If you have the illness then you should research the meds and if you dont then you should worry about it

    ReplyDelete
  2. There are several web site promotes medications products to be sold on the internet, which for some make it easy to get illegal medicine handy. I also remember one of the TV series Private Practice, and I know it is TV drama and might not be true but in one of its episodes they show that one of the disturbed sick woman who lost her child, planned to kidnap a pregnant Dr. her shrink, and planned to operate on her and kidnapped her baby born boy; as I said that might not be true, but what is true is the internet commercial is real, and anyone can get the information, the equipments, they want as long as they can pay for it. This is the one of the things I believe in it that effect the public security and this is one of the cases I believe in the government to watch over the individuals use for the internet.

    ReplyDelete