Comment Re:Miscarriage of Justice == NOT (Score 1) 556
Bottom line is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights only grant rights to individuals; not to corporations.
And later ...
There are a number of cases (liquor and tobacco advertising come to mind) in which the "speech" of corporations is highly regulated in a manner that would not be tolerated if it were applied to an individual.
The distinction is more between commercial versus non-commercial rather than individual versus corporation. E.g., an individual engaged in any heavily regulated industry (like drugs, food, tobacco, alcohol) is similarly regulated as the corporation.
The individual cannot advertise their microbrew hootch in all locals/venues. The individual cannot claim their apples are "organic" (a descriptor... just a word) even if they are technically "organic" (carbon compound) unless they are also legally organic (maze of silly regulations). Nor can the individual claim their miracle potion is a cure for cancer if - in fact - it is not.
I think you eventually come to the same/similar conclusion:
Ergo, commercial speech is not protected to anywhere near the extent that individual speech is protected (again, as Nike found out). To me, this means commercial speech is not a protected form of free speech; sort of protected under certain circumstances and at a lawmaker's, regulator's and/or judge's discretion doesn't cut it.
IMO, commercial speech is one of those areas where the supreme court has collectively brain-farted. The restrictions would not be so readily swallowed in - e.g., - print newspapers.
And later
There are a number of cases (liquor and tobacco advertising come to mind) in which the "speech" of corporations is highly regulated in a manner that would not be tolerated if it were applied to an individual.
The distinction is more between commercial versus non-commercial rather than individual versus corporation. E.g., an individual engaged in any heavily regulated industry (like drugs, food, tobacco, alcohol) is similarly regulated as the corporation.
The individual cannot advertise their microbrew hootch in all locals/venues. The individual cannot claim their apples are "organic" (a descriptor... just a word) even if they are technically "organic" (carbon compound) unless they are also legally organic (maze of silly regulations). Nor can the individual claim their miracle potion is a cure for cancer if - in fact - it is not.
I think you eventually come to the same/similar conclusion:
Ergo, commercial speech is not protected to anywhere near the extent that individual speech is protected (again, as Nike found out). To me, this means commercial speech is not a protected form of free speech; sort of protected under certain circumstances and at a lawmaker's, regulator's and/or judge's discretion doesn't cut it.
IMO, commercial speech is one of those areas where the supreme court has collectively brain-farted. The restrictions would not be so readily swallowed in - e.g., - print newspapers.
