Comm Law Final Exam Pt 4

Front 1

commercial speech

Back 1

proposes a commercial transaction between the sender and the receiver or expression related solely to the economic interests of the speaker and his audience
speech that does not specifically propose a commercial transaction may still be considered commercial speech

Front 2

Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)

Back 2

advertising submarine tours"purely commercial advertising" is not protected by the First Amendment
ruling weakened by NY Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Front 3

Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Council (1976)

Back 3

First Amendment protects commercial speech, but not as much as other forms of speech
government may ban false, misleading, deceptive ads and those for illegal products or service
government may regulate time, place & manner regulations involving political and commercial speech

Front 4

Central Hudson Gas v. NY (1980)

Back 4

established the modern standard to gauge whether commercial speech can be prohibited or limited
is the ad eligible for First Amendment protection?
if yes, does the government have a substantial interest in the regulation?
if yes, does the regulation advance that interest?
is the regulation the least restrictive alternative?

Front 5

S.U.N.Y. v. Fox (1989)

Back 5

changed fourth part of the Central Hudson test to:
is there a reasonable fit between the government interest and the regulation? is the regulation narrowly tailored to achieve the desired objective?

Front 6

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1970)

Back 6

R.I. and Penn reimbursed religious schools for teacher salaries and directly reimbursed teachers respectively for secular teaching
developed test for laws concerning religion:
secular legislative purpose
neither advances nor inhibits religion
no excessive entanglement between state and religion

Front 7

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

Back 7

Native American smoking peyote denied unemployment benefits
an individual's religious beliefs do not excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law

Front 8

Estes v. Texas (1965)

Back 8

cameras in the courtroom may be prohibited when they create a distraction

Front 9

Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966)

Back 9

judges should use Sheppard remedies to protect defendant rights