Commercial Speech & The Changes In Censorship

It is so interesting to see the shift in First Amendment rights for commercial businesses throughout the last several decades. In the ruling of Valentine v. Chrestensen, the Supreme Court decided there was no First Amendment protection that needed to be given for commercial and advertising purposes. This meant that the government could limit or prohibit any piece of advertisement it wanted for any reason it wanted, which is a dangerous precedent to set. If an administration felt a corporation or its agency was making too much money or if it simply did not like the organization, it could be limited based on speech.

By 1976, the judicial branch realized the excess of power governmental officials had in this realm and a new decision was made by the Court. In the Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council case, everyone was introduced to the term, "commercial speech." Specifically, the Court ruled that the State cannot limit pharmacists' right to provide information about prescription drug prices. This case was keystone because it gave businesses the right to say what they want when advertising their products within reason. Via this ruling, commercial ads received FA protections as long as they were not false ads, misleading or deceptive ads, or ads for illegal products and services. The purpose of this is to not only protect the businesses, but also the consumers. As determined by the case, listeners of messages have a right to hear the information provided.

Though it makes advertisers and consumers more free in a sense, this ruling opens the door for potential regulation if deemed necessary. As per the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) rulings of 1914, there were already policies in place to regulate ads. Some examples of restrictions or a determination of unfair practice would be:

• if it (the advertised product or service) causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to the consumer

• the harm is not outweighed by the benefits of the product

• if a health claim is made without substantiation

These set rulings along with the regulations put in place are good because they give consumers the opportunity to learn more about different products to make the best decision for themselves and they give businesses the opportunity to share their products with more people. However, there is a new issue on the rise: censorship by private organizations. Specifically, this involves social media. Companies and sites like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter have full capabilities to limit or ban what individuals or groups say if the content "violates community guidelines." Because these companies are not a part of the government and because the term "violates community guidelines" is intentionally broad and vague, these companies current are fully within their legal rights to do this. Increasingly we are seeing this turning into an abuse of power with no end in sight. I suggest that we begin to work towards creating laws that limit the power of private organizations to restrict First Amendment protections of American citizens, or we will continue to actively use company services that look less like the foundations of the United States.