Com 256- Exam 3 Lecture 1

Front 1

Controversy #1 Subliminal mesages

Back 1

*Myth: Subliminal ads work
*Research evidence: They have no effect

Front 2

Controversy #2 Between Men and Women

Back 2

*Myth: Women have much higher persuasibility scores than men
*Research evidence: Small difference between men and women
Socialization effect?

Front 3

Subliminal Messages (def):

Back 3

A stimulus a person cannot identify because it is below the threshold of consciousness

Front 4

Persuasibility (def):

Back 4

How easily a person is persuaded

Front 5

1st Amendment

Back 5

Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

Front 6

Advertising is considered _____ which means ______

Back 6

Commercial speech
Does not have the same protection as other speech types

Front 7

Valentine v. Christensen (1942)

Back 7

Commercial speech is not protected because it does not contribute to decision making in democracy

Front 8

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

Back 8

Court ruled that the 1st Amendment protects criticism of the government that appeared in advertising even though it included some minor factual errors

Front 9

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

Back 9

States cannot prohibit pharmacists from advertising prices of prescription drugs because the free flow of information is indispensable

Front 10

Friedman v. Rogers (1979)

Back 10

Court rules that a Texas optometrist can only advertise under the name which he is licensed to practice optometry (i.e., and not a brand name or alias).
Court argues that commercial speech can be restricted in ways that would be unconstitutional in the “realm of noncommercial speech.”

Front 11

Central Hudson Gas & Electric v. Public Service Commission of New York (1980)

Back 11

Court established a four-part test to determine when commercial speech was constitutionally protected.
Known as the Central Hudson Four-Part Test

Front 12

Central Hudson Four-Part Test

Back 12

Part 1: Is the advertising deceptive or is the product illegal?

Part 2: Is their a government interest at stake (e.g., democracy, fair choice)?

Part 3: Is there a compelling case that the regulation actually works (i.e., accomplishes the goal of part 2)?

Part 4: Is the regulation more extensive than necessary?

Front 13

Board of Trustees of the State University of New York v. Fox (1988)

Back 13

Court ruled that a college could prohibit commercial speech even if it threatened to infringe on non-commercial speech.
Court noted that commercial speech regulation should be “narrowly tailored” but it does not have to be “the least restrictive option available”
Ruling undermined Central Hudson Four-Part Test

Front 14

44 Liquormart, Inc v. Rhode Island (1996)

Back 14

Court ruled that a Rhode Island ban on price advertising for alcoholic beverages was unconstitutional.
Court argued that the ban failed to meet the third part of the Central Hudson Four-Part Test.

Front 15

Regulation

Back 15

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF)
The U.S. Postal Service
The States’ Attorneys Office
AAAA’s Creative Code