Ask the Scholar
Page 85 of 101
I can add historical knowledge about this page.
Page image
OCR
02/09/98 MON 09:36 FAX
5
007
cigarettes on television and radio. See 15 U.S.C. § 1335. In 1972, the Court summarily
affirmed the constitutionality of that statutory ban. Capital Broadcasting Co. V. Acting
Attorney General, 405 U.S. 1000 (1972), summarily affirming Capital Broadcasting Co. V.
Mitchell, 333 F. Supp. 582. (D.D.C. 1971). In 1976, however, the Supreme Court
changed course and held that commercial is deserving of some measure of protection
under the First Amendment. Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy V. Virginia Citizens
Consumer Counsel, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976).
In our brief in the Coyne Beam case, we explain why the FDA restrictions are
constitutional under the currently controlling framework for First Amendment review of
restrictions on advertising, set out by the Supreme Court in Central Hudson Gas & Elec.
Corp. V. Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980). The Central Hudson analysis asks
as a threshold question whether the regulated speech is "related to unlawful activity" or is
misleading. Id. at 564. If so, the speech can be freely regulated by the Government; if
not, the next issues to be considered are: "whether the asserted governmental interest is
substantial"; "whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted";
and "whether [the regulation] is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that
interest." Id. at 566. Our brief in the Coyne Beam case explains that the FDA regulations
satisfy each of the four parts of the Central Hudson test. What follows is a summary of
the arguments that we made.
The Prohibited Advertising Is Related to Unlawful Activity
The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that commercial speech "related to"
unlawful activity is not entitled to First Amendment protection. See, e.g., 44 Liquormart,
6
Page data
- Page
- 85
- Source index
- 0
- Type
- photo
- Media ID
- cd28d08ec861bff3
- Size
- unknown
Document data
- ID
- 26413612
- Core
- doc
- Type
- document
DTO data
{
"id": "26413612",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26413612",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Tobacco Liability [1]",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26413612",
"collections": [
"Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
"Bruce Reed's Tobacco Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/12/4136/26413612/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2011-0299-S-Tobacco/2011-0299-S-Tobacco-JPG/Box_270/42-t-7367462-20110299S-270-013-2015/42_t_7367462_20110299S_270_013_2015_Page_001.JPG",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/12/4136/26413612/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2011-0299-S-Tobacco/2011-0299-S-Tobacco-JPG/Box_270/42-t-7367462-20110299S-270-013-2015/42_t_7367462_20110299S_270_013_2015_Page_001.JPG",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/12/4136/26413612/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2011-0299-S-Tobacco/2011-0299-S-Tobacco-JPG/Box_270/42-t-7367462-20110299S-270-013-2015/42_t_7367462_20110299S_270_013_2015_Page_001.JPG",
"imageCount": 101,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Context sent to Scholar
Document identity
{
"localId": "26413612",
"label": "Tobacco Liability [1]",
"core": "doc",
"dtoType": "document",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26413612"
}
Document source metadata
{
"id": "26413612",
"sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26413612",
"contentType": "document",
"title": "Tobacco Liability [1]",
"citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26413612",
"collections": [
"Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
"Bruce Reed's Tobacco Files"
],
"iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/12/4136/26413612/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2011-0299-S-Tobacco/2011-0299-S-Tobacco-JPG/Box_270/42-t-7367462-20110299S-270-013-2015/42_t_7367462_20110299S_270_013_2015_Page_001.JPG",
"thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/12/4136/26413612/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2011-0299-S-Tobacco/2011-0299-S-Tobacco-JPG/Box_270/42-t-7367462-20110299S-270-013-2015/42_t_7367462_20110299S_270_013_2015_Page_001.JPG",
"largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/12/4136/26413612/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2011-0299-S-Tobacco/2011-0299-S-Tobacco-JPG/Box_270/42-t-7367462-20110299S-270-013-2015/42_t_7367462_20110299S_270_013_2015_Page_001.JPG",
"imageCount": 101,
"hasImages": true,
"source": "import",
"hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras
{
"url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26413612",
"naId": 26413612,
"levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
"otherTitles": [
"42-t-7367462-20110299S-270-013-2015"
],
"recordType": "description",
"ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context
{
"seq": 85,
"pageIndex": 0,
"type": "photo",
"url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/12/4136/26413612/content/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2011-0299-S-Tobacco/2011-0299-S-Tobacco-JPG/Box_270/42-t-7367462-20110299S-270-013-2015/42_t_7367462_20110299S_270_013_2015_Page_085.JPG",
"mediaId": "cd28d08ec861bff3",
"ocrText": "02/09/98 MON 09:36 FAX\n5\n007\ncigarettes on television and radio. See 15 U.S.C. § 1335. In 1972, the Court summarily\naffirmed the constitutionality of that statutory ban. Capital Broadcasting Co. V. Acting\nAttorney General, 405 U.S. 1000 (1972), summarily affirming Capital Broadcasting Co. V.\nMitchell, 333 F. Supp. 582. (D.D.C. 1971). In 1976, however, the Supreme Court\nchanged course and held that commercial is deserving of some measure of protection\nunder the First Amendment. Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy V. Virginia Citizens\nConsumer Counsel, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976).\nIn our brief in the Coyne Beam case, we explain why the FDA restrictions are\nconstitutional under the currently controlling framework for First Amendment review of\nrestrictions on advertising, set out by the Supreme Court in Central Hudson Gas & Elec.\nCorp. V. Public Serv. Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980). The Central Hudson analysis asks\nas a threshold question whether the regulated speech is \"related to unlawful activity\" or is\nmisleading. Id. at 564. If so, the speech can be freely regulated by the Government; if\nnot, the next issues to be considered are: \"whether the asserted governmental interest is\nsubstantial\"; \"whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted\";\nand \"whether [the regulation] is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that\ninterest.\" Id. at 566. Our brief in the Coyne Beam case explains that the FDA regulations\nsatisfy each of the four parts of the Central Hudson test. What follows is a summary of\nthe arguments that we made.\nThe Prohibited Advertising Is Related to Unlawful Activity\nThe Supreme Court has repeatedly said that commercial speech \"related to\"\nunlawful activity is not entitled to First Amendment protection. See, e.g., 44 Liquormart,\n6"
}