1

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract

Introduction

Cases and Literature

Discussion

Opinion

21

Conclusion

22

Works Cited

24

Bibliography

26

Statement of Academic integrity

28

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

3
ABSTRACT

The First Amendment and advertising have historically conflicted in the United States.
Originally, the First Amendment did not protect advertising. Advertising was subject to
strict regulations and had no freedom of speech. In 1942, the idea of commercial
speech was introduced to the Supreme Court, and in the 1970s, the Supreme Court
began reviewing the stance that commercial speech is not protected. In 1980, the
Supreme Court heard the crucial Central Hudson case. This case developed
Commercial Speech Doctrine that states that only advertising that is false or for illegal
goods or services may be completely banned. The Doctrine also states that regulations
on advertising must prove fit with and advance a reasonable state interest. Since its
inception, the Commercial Speech Doctrine has provided a sufficient answer for the
United States judiciary system to rule on subsequent conflicts between advertising and
the First Amendment. While a changing landscape in society, culture, technology, as
well as changing legal issues prove to ensure further conflicts, the Commercial Speech
Doctrine appears to be the answer into the future as well.

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

4
INTRODUCTION

The First Amendment reads as granting those in the United States the freedom of
speech. Freedom of speech specifically means that the government may not prosecute
anyone for his or her speech.

There is an issue, however, when it comes to speech in the form of advertising.

Historically, advertising was not protected under the First Amendment. However,
throughout the course of history, this lack of protection was challenged. Eventually, the
modern Commercial Speech Doctrine was agreed upon, and regulations on advertising
became very specific.

Every day, Americans are subjected to taking in a plethora of advertisements.

Advertisements are different from other types of speech because the clear motive
behind them is to make money. This is dangerous to the people, because deceptive and
false methods may be used in order to get people to spend money. Children are
particularly susceptible and need protection from advertising, because the values that
they learn at a young age are likely to stick with them for life.

Personally, I am an artist with a great interest in advertising. I wish to be involved in

advertising at some point in the future, thus learning about the protections granted to
advertising under the First Amendment is important in order to have a long lasting
career.

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

5
LITERATURE AND CASES - listed chronologically

The First Amendment

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; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of
grievances.

Valentine v. Christensen (1942)

The first case presented to the Supreme Court that commercial speech was not
protected by the U.S. constitution. This brought the issue of commercial speech into
light.

Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (1973)

Pittsburgh Press Co. argued that this law violated their First Amendment rights. The
Supreme Court ruled that this law did not violate the First Amendment.

Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1975)

The Supreme Court ruled that advertisements couldnt be banned for what they
advertise, as long as what they advertise is a legal good or service.

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

Pricing information cannot be banned from advertisements. This case established the

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

6
precedent that consumers can make decisions that are best for them when provided
with the proper information.

Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro (1977)

Even though the intentions of preventing white flight may be considered good, For
Sale signs are not to be banned because they serve a clear purpose of communication.

Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980)
Blanket bans on advertising are not allowed, like the ban on all electric company
advertisements. The Central Hudson case established the Commercial Speech
Doctrine.

The Commercial Speech Doctrine

The First Amendment does not protect either false or misleading ads or ads for
unlawful goods or services. Government may regulate truthful advertising for legal
goods and services if the following conditions are met: (a) there is a substantial state
interest to justify the regulation. (b) There is evidence that the regulation directly
advances this interest. (c) There is a reasonable fit between the state interest and the
government regulation.

Metromedia, Inc v. City of San Diego (1981)

Allowing for billboards to be placed on-site but not off-site discriminated against noncommercial speech because those without property were not afforded the same

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

7
privilege of speech.

Members of the City Council for the City of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)
Outdoor advertising could be banned for aesthetic purposes.

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001)

A ban on tobacco advertisements was struck down for being overly broad.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA (2012)

While the FDA provided proof of a substantial state interest when it called for new
advertising techniques to be used in order to lower the rate of smoking, they failed to
provide proof that their proposed methods would be effective.

United States v. Caronia, (2012)

Speaking of the off-label uses of a prescription drug that the FDA approved does not
constitute as false advertising.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Ruled that a restriction on how corporations and organizations spend their money in
regards to broadcasting electioneering information close to an election is a violation of
the First Amendment.

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

8
DISCUSSION

In order to understand the history of advertising and its conflicts with the First
Amendment, a reasonable definition of advertising must be provided. The legal
definition of an advertisement is any action or device used to draw attention to
merchandise, goods, or services. Advertising is carried out in a manner that would be
defined as speech according to the First Amendment, be it through fliers, billboards, or
even on the Internet.

Historically, advertising, or commercial speech as it may be referred to, has been one
of the most regulated forms of speech in the United States. Until the middle of the 20 th
century, commercial speech was considered a clear exception to the First Amendment.
The idea was that somebody could not use the public domain for commercial gain. The
ideas behind the protection of free speech offered in the First Amendment were pure in
the sense that business and profits did not belong. The Constitution did not explicitly
protect such speech, and therefor it was not to be protected.

It is important to keep in mind that advertising itself was not illegal, but rather, there
were zero protections allowed for advertising within free speech. Therefor, advertising
was able to be regulated and had little means of fighting against such regulations.

Commercial Speech being protected or unprotected first came to light in 1942, when the
Supreme Court ruled on Valentine v. Christensen. F.J. Christensen docked his World

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

9
War I submarine in the East River in New York City during 1940 and began handing out
fliers that advertised a trip on the submarine for a fee, which was a practice that New
York City had previously banned.

Initially, Christensen found a way around the ban New York City had on advertising in
the streets by simply removing the pricing from the flier and also adding protest
information to the other side. The federal court system initially ruled in favor of
Christensen, however, the Supreme Court digressed.

In his opinion, Chief Justice Owen J. Roberts did say that the streets were the
appropriate place for communication; however, he upheld the law of New York City by
saying that commercial speech was not explicitly protected.

This court has unequivocally held that the streets are proper places for the exercise of
the freedom of communicating information and disseminating opinion and that, though
the states and municipalities may appropriately regulate the privilege in the public
interest, they may not unduly burden or proscribe its employment in these public
thoroughfares. We are equally clear that the Constitution imposes no such restraint on
government as respects purely commercial advertising. Whether, and to what extent,
one may promote or pursue a gainful occupation in the streets, to what extent such
activity shall be adjudged a derogation of the public right of user, are matters for
legislative judgment.

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

10
While Valentine v. Christensen did little to change the way that advertising was
conducted, it was the first time that commercial speech was brought up as a concept in
the federal legal system.

After the Christensen decision, very little came up in regards to commercial speech and
the First Amendment for more than 30 years. In 1973, the Pittsburgh Press Co. v.
Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations stood with the precedent in Valentine v.
Christensen that commercial speech was not protected by the First Amendment, but
also stated that Valentine v. Christensen was not relevant to the fact that the
advertisements the Pittsburgh Press Co. was printing were illegal.

Two years later, there were finally big waves made in regards to the First Amendment
and its relation to advertising. Jeffery C. Bigelow was the director and managing editor
for a weekly newspaper that was distributed in Virginia where abortion was illegal. In the
newspaper, advertisements were shown for low cost options for terminating unwanted
pregnancy in New York hospitals, where abortion was legal. This case then worked its
way through the appellate system.

In 1974, Bigelow v. Virginia was argued before the Supreme Court. Bigelow said that
the Virginia statute that he was convicted of violating was unconstitutional under the
First Amendment. This statute prohibited the sale or circulation of materials that
encouraged or prompted abortion. Virginia argued that what Bigelow was guilty of was
plainly commercial speech, and thus not protected by the First Amendment.

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

11

In 1975, the Supreme Court delivered its opinion on Bigelow v. Virginia. The Opinion of
the Court that commercial speech is indeed protected, although it may be regulated. In
the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Blackmun, not only was the Virginia Statute
declared illegal, as abortion is a constitutionally protected right, it was stated that the
Supreme Court has decided to give a defendant standing to challenge a statute on
grounds that it is facially overbroad, regardless of whether his own conduct could be
regulated by a more narrowly drawn statute, because of the danger of tolerating, in the
area of First Amendment freedoms, the existence of a penal statute susceptible of
sweeping and improper application. This means that speech is not suddenly
unprotected because it exists as a paid commercial advertisement, and that leaving
such speech unprotected is potentially dangerous to the freedom of speech protected
by the First Amendment.

The Bigelow case was the paved the way for what would eventually be known as the
Commercial Speech Doctrine. Several Supreme Court cases followed Bigelow that
furthered the notion that commercial speech did have some protections.

Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Consumer Council (1977) ruled against a Virginia
statute that prohibited price advertising for pharmaceuticals. The Court said that it was
unreasonable for a statute to be so paternalistic and to close channels of information,
rather than to leave them open, for the purpose of people being well informed enough to
make decisions in their own best interest. While this case did further the notion that

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

12
advertising was protected under the First Amendment, it also furthered the notion that
regulations were indeed allowed. Commonsense differences exist between
commercial speech and other types of speech that allow for regulation to be tolerated.

Also in 1977, Linmark Associates, Inc v. Township of Willingboro was heard. The
Township of Willingboro, NJ, was integrating and banned the placement of for sale signs
in front yards in order to prevent white flight. The township was worried that seeing a
for-sale sign would snowball into the mass migration of whites out of the area and offset
the ongoing racial integration. While the ban had what could be perceived as good
intentions, it was ruled that the for-sale signs were a type of commercial speech
between a homeowner and purchaser, and thus protected. Fear of people reacting
irrationally was not enough cause to support the regulation on this speech.

In 1980, the Commercial Speech Doctrine was solidified into a form that we currently
see today after the ruling on Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service
Commission, also known just as Central Hudson. The Central Hudson test is still used
today as the balancing test for commercial-speech regulations.

New York had banned promotional ads by electric utility companies. The state had an
interest in promoting the conservation of energy. Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp.
argued that this ban violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court
ruled overturned the ban. While the Court did recognize that the ban did further the
interest of the state, the ban did not distinguish between advertisements that would

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

13
have an effect and those that would have no effect at all. The ban was an
unconstitutional blanket smothering all advertisement regardless.

The Central Hudson case created a test that is still in use today for regulations on
commercial speech. In order for truthful advertising for legal goods and services to be
regulated, it must meet the following conditions:
a. There is a substantial state interest to justify the regulation.
b. There is evidence that the regulation directly advances this interest.
c. There is a reasonable fit between the state interest and the government
regulation.
Under the modern commercial speech doctrine, the First Amendment does not protect
false or misleading advertisements, or advertisements for unlawful goods or services.

The years following the Central Hudson case contained several conflicting opinions as
the Supreme Court worked itself out. For example, Metromedia, Inc v. City of San Diego
(1981) struck down a ban on outdoor advertising that cited traffic safety as being of
concern. However, in 1984, City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent upheld a ban on
outdoor advertising that advanced the state interest of aesthetic grounds.

Within regulating commercial speech, the regulation of commercial speech in regards to

vices proposed an interesting conundrum. Efforts were starting to be made to regulate
advertising for vices such as gambling, legal sexual goods and services, alcohol and
tobacco stricter than other products. States were citing a moral interest in the regulation
of such goods and services. It was eventually determined that sometimes the underlying

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

14
cause for such regulations was anticompetitive in nature, as sometimes these vices
overlapped with the inner workings of the government. The Supreme Court went back
and forth on decisions involving vice advertising, until 2001.

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly stated that Massachusettss statute restricting tobacco
advertising was unconstitutional. Massachusetts argued that they had a substantial
interest in deterring underage smoking, however, the Supreme Court found no evidence
to back this up. The idea that open channels of communication allow for people to make
the best decisions for themselves appears in this case just as it did in the Bigelow case.
The statutes against big tobacco were determined not to be a reasonable fit for
advancing the interest of the state in the Central Hudson test.

The First Amendment rights of big tobacco were again reaffirmed in 2012 in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA, the
court used the Central Hudson test to determine the legality of the FDA trying to put
graphic images on cigarette packs to advance the agenda of curbing smoking for health
reasons. Under the Central Hudson Test, it was determined that reducing smoking was
a substantial state interest, however, the FDA failed to provide any proof that these
images would lower the smoking rate. In 2013, the Supreme Court determined that it
would not hear an appeal.

The history of conflicts between advertising and the First Amendment is rather young,
but rapidly expanding as society evolves and technology changes. Since the rulings

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

15
began promoting the protection of commercial speech, advertising has become a multibillion dollar industry at the forefront of American culture.

In a societal and cultural context, the distinction between political speech, which is fully
protected by the First Amendment, and commercial speech, which is protected but may
be regulated, is hard to distinguish between.

In the United States v. Caronia (E.D.N.Y. 2008), the 2 nd Circuit Court struck down a
ruling that it was illegal for pharmaceutical representatives and manufacturers to
promote the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved drug Xylem for off label uses
that it might be effective for. Caronia claimed that he was prosecuted for his use of
speech, and thus his First Amendment rights were effectively violated. The FDA claimed
that this speech was commercial and subject to their regulations.

In the Opinion of the Court, it is written that the regulations do not expressly prohibit the
promotion or marketing of drugs for off-label use. Furthermore, Caronias defense
argued that the First Amendment does not permit the government to prohibit and
criminalize a pharmaceutical manufacturers truthful and non misleading promotion of
an FDA-approved drug to physicians for off label use where such use is not itself illegal
and others are permitted to engage in such speech. Further into the opinion, the First
Amendment is discussed in the context that United States v. Caronia raised. The First
Amendment prevents the regulation of speech due to content, and it was found that the
FDA was guilty of this. Content based regulations are presumptively invalid. The

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

16
expression must be directly related to the economic interests of the speaker and its
audience.

In the United States v. Caronia, the First Amendment was upheld on the idea that
speech cannot be regulated solely on content alone. Even when that speech is
regulated, the regulations must be clearly against commercial speech. As the Supreme
Court has grown through these issues, they have developed a test to determine if
speech is indeed commercial instead of political.

a. The expression is an advertisement.

b. The speech refers to a specific product.
c. The speaker has an economic motivation for speaking.

With advertising being the giant that it is, there will be speech that comes up in during
promotional activities. This speech may not be solely commercial, however, and
therefore it may not be subject to as strict of the regulations. As the line blurs between
political and commercial speech, so will the regulations.

From a societal and cultural standpoint, as well as a legal stand point, the United States
has shifted to be friendlier towards big businesses. Corporate personhood gives
corporations legal rights that are enjoyed by regular people. This applies legally, as one
corporation can sue another. This also applies in terms of free speech and advertising.
A natural person in the United States has their speech protected by the First
Amendment. As corporate personhood becomes more accepted, commercial speech

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

17
becomes more protected.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) dealt with campaign spending by
organizations. Citizens United was accused by the Federal Election Commission of
what was considered illegal political advertising by promoting Hillary Clinton: the Movie.
Citizens United claimed that they were well within their First Amendment rights. The
ruling by the Supreme Court stated that Citizens United was disclosing their
endorsements properly, and thus they were protected.

Corporate personhood has become increasingly more supported, especially by those

who benefit, but not without opposition. While Supreme Court did not directly speak of
corporate personhood in the case, the Move to Amend was created as an immediate
result of this ruling. The Move to Amend seeks to directly abolish corporate personhood,
and thus abolish a corporations First Amendment rights through a constitutional
amendment. This means that any of the previous rulings, which have protected
advertising under the First Amendment, would be overturned.

As corporations have gained more legal rights, they continue to exercise them.
Advertising sees less conflict with the First Amendment than it has in the past via the
rulings that have protected commercial speech and corporate personhood.

Technology has drastically changed the landscape of advertising. What was once
passing out fliers on a street can now be found digitally in the hands of nearly every

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

18
American citizen.

The reasons for limiting commercial speech involve protecting the American people for
various reasons. These reasons include protecting children from harmful substances,
such as alcohol and tobacco, protection from false advertising, and protection from the
advertising of illegal goods and services. Technology, specifically the Internet and the
devices that it is used on, has made the regulation of advertising harder than ever.

In the context of the First Amendment, the regulation of advertising has to do specifically
with content and methods of the speech. Nothing yet has exempted online advertising
from the Commercial Speech Doctrine. From a legal standpoint, however, the Internet is
the Wild West. Anyone may put up a website and create content, such as
advertisements. For it to be regulated, it needs to be seen by the proper authorities. It is
not hard for the black market to evade such authorities. Advertisements for illegal goods
and services may be found on places as common as Craigslist, which is expansive. The
opportunity for misleading advertisements to be placed is as infinite as the Internet
itself.

In the future, the issue of advertising conflicting with the First Amendment looks to more
clearly define the Commercial Speech Doctrine. As more cases arrive with the Internet
being the means to distribute advertisement, the rules will become more clearly defined.
In general, the idea that the First Amendment protects advertising has been clear to
favor the advertisers. Major cases in the history of advertising have been major steps

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

19
forward and not backwards. The Courts Opinions have continued to state the
importance of the protection of commercial speech, even when it has ruled against an
advertiser. Cases like the recent 2012 ruling on RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA show
that commercial speech is permitted, even when it is for a product that has been
determined to be harmful, like tobacco.

An interesting look into the future includes marijuana legalization and the dwindling War
on Drugs. Recreational marijuana recently has become legal in four states; Alaska,
Colorado, Oregon, and Washington. These states have included guidelines for
advertising marijuana in their legislation. Specifically, Colorado drafted very strict rules
for advertising marijuana in an effort to protect minors. In 2014, two publications had
begun legal proceedings against the state of Colorado saying that their advertising
regulations were in violation of the First Amendment. These rules include anywhere
where the audience could potentially be at least 30% minors, which means no
advertising through sponsorships, television, radio, online, or through most print
publications, including fliers. When Amendment 64 passed, which was what Colorado
put to a vote in order to legalize marijuana, specifically called for advertising to be
similar to alcohol. These issues with Colorado are currently still in the process of being
worked out.

Canada has also begun the process to legalize marijuana, which presents a unique
issue, especially apparent in border states like New York. Frequently on the radio in
these areas, advertisements for Canadian businesses, including liquor stores may be

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

20
heard. Should Canada be able to legalize marijuana completely, and New York State
continue to outlaw it, would the advertising be banned? On one side of the coin,
advertising for marijuana would violate the Commercial Speech Doctrine because it is
for an illegal good or service by New York States standard, but on the other side of the
coin, it would be advocating for a good or service available specifically in Canada, and
thus not illegal in New York State. The precedent set by Bigelow v. Virginia states that
the advertising would be allowed. This is a question the courts may have to answer in
the future.

OPINION

The conflict between advertising and the First Amendment is one that is necessary.

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

21
Free speech is important, however, there is a clear motive behind advertising and
commercial speech, and that is to make money. Without regulation, it would be very
easy for advertising to become full of blatant lies in order to get people to spend their
money.

Advertising has become huge in the United States. In 2013, there were over 171 billion
dollars spent on advertising in the US, with the numbers on spending predicted to rise
steadily in the near future. That money is already incredibly influential with how much
Americans are exposed to advertising. Without regulation, Americans would be in
danger of spending and open themselves up to advertisements in ways they may not be
comfortable with. Children would be especially at risk. This is why we have the
Commercial Speech Doctrine in the first place.

To say that commercial speech should not be protected is quite ridiculous. Commercial
speech is speech after all, and thus it should be protected. There is nothing inherently
wrong with making money, especially in a capitalist society. Issues come about when
immoral and/or unethical methods arise in the process of making money.

The Commercial Speech Doctrine currently provides a sufficient answer to the question
of where to draw the line on advertising.
CONCLUSION

The history of the conflicts between advertising and the First Amendment is relatively

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

22
short, as the first case did not arise until 1942 in Valentine v. Christensen. Since that
time, the judicial system of the United States has continued to work out what is and isnt
allowable.

Notably, the Commercial Speech Doctrine, which arose from Central Hudson Gas &
Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980), is still in use today. The
Commercial Speech Doctrine states that advertising must be truthful and for legal goods
or services. The Commercial Speech Doctrine also states that if and when truthful
advertising for legal goods and services is regulated, there must be a substantial state
interest, there must be evidence that the proposed regulations directly advance a
substantial state evidence, and there must be reasonable fit between the state interest
and government regulation.

Rulings by the Supreme Court have made great strides in allowing commercial speech
to be protected by the First Amendment. Even when the products or services being
advertised for are less than desirable, the government does not allow the restriction of
advertisement as long as they are legal. This has been seen in the various rulings that
have allowed tobacco and alcohol to advertise. Virginia also saw an interesting case
with Bigelow v. Virginia, where speech about a good or service was permissible even
though it was in an area where the good or service was not.

As corporations have grown bigger, and advertising more prominent, there have been
different ways of dealing with commercial speech and what truly is commercial speech,

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

23
versus what is political or plain individuals discussing a product. The lines continue to
blur. Talking about off brand uses of a product, for example, is not illegal so long as the
sole intent is not to profit.

The internet and other technologies, as well as the constant societal, cultural, and legal
changes within the United States ensure that there will continue be conflicts that need a
resolution in regards to the First Amendment.

So long as the proper information is available to consumers, they are to be entrusted

with making the decisions that are best for them.

WORKS CITED

"Advertising Spending in the U.S. 2014 | Statistic." Statista. The Statistics Portal, n.d.

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

24
Web. 10 Dec. 2015.

Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975)

Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557
(1980)

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001)

Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Township of Willingboro, 431 U.S. 85 (1977)

Members of the City Council for the City of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466
U.S. 789 (1984)

Metromedia, Inc v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 590 (1981)

Pember, D., & Calvert, C. (2015). Chapter 15 Regulaton of Advertising. In Mass media
law (19th ed.). McGraw Hill Education.

Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376
(1973)

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

25

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. FDA, 696 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 2012)

United States v. Caronia, 703 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2012)

U. S. Constitution, Amendment 1

Valentine v. Christensen, 316 U.S. 52 (1942)

Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748
(1976)

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

26
BIBLIOGRAPHY

"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law

at Illinois Tech, n.d. Dec 4, 2015.

Coffman, Keith. "Limits on Marijuana Advertising Land Colorado in Court." Reuters.

Thomson Reuters, 12 Feb. 2014. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.

The Denver Post Editorial Board. "Restrictions on Marijuana Advertising Violate First
Amendment." The Denver Post. The Denver Post, 15 Feb. 2014. Web. 8 Dec.
2015.

Johnson, Bruce E. H. "First Amendment Center." First Amendment Center. Vanderbuilt

University Newseum, 10 Dec. 2002. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.

"Legal Information Institute." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University, n.d.
Web. 8 Dec. 2015.

"Move to Amend." Frequently Asked Questions. Move to Amend, n.d. Web. 8 Dec.
2015.

Plucinska, Joanna. "Canada Begins to Move on Legalizing Marijuana." Time. Time, 16

Nov. 2015. Web. 10 Dec. 2015.

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

27

Sullivan, Thomas. "US v. Caronia, One Year Later." Policy and Medicine. Policy and
Medicine, 20 Feb. 2014. Web. 6 Dec. 2015.

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment

28
STATEMENT OF ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
I affirm that I am aware of the Buffalo State Communication Department statement on
plagiarism, found at http://communication.buffalostate.edu/plagiarism.
I affirm that I have read the Communication Department statement on plagiarism.
I affirm that I have not plagiarized any portion of the research paper that I am submitting
for COM 400W- Fall 2015.
I understand that if it is discovered that I have plagiarized any portion of the research
paper that I am submitting, that I will receive a 0 (zero) on the assignment with no
option to resubmit the work. I further understand that the matter will be referred to the
Communication Department chair for disciplinary action.

__________________________
Signature
__________________________
Printed Name
__________________________
Date

Voit

Conflicts Between Advertising and the First Amendment