Do Not Call - the constitutional question

[Marty Lederman]

No -- that's the point of Discovery Network:  that commercial speech cannot be "more highly regulated" than other forms of _expression_ simply on the ground that it's commercial.  Commercial speech that is (i) false; (ii) misleading; or (iii) proposing an unlawful transaction can be more highly regulated than its noncommercial analogue; but outside those categories, the state needs a good reason for the commercial/noncommercial distinction, other than the assertion that commercial speech is "lower value," or more constitutionally amenable to regulation.   In my prior post, I should have mentioned one further justification that we can expect to see from the FTC on appeal -- namely, that it makes sense to impose the regulation specially on profitmaking, as opposed to nonprofit, entities, because they can pass on the costs to consumers, and thus more easily bear the brunt of the regulatory burdens.  This justification would, however, more readily support a profit/nonprofit regulatory distinction, which is not quite the same as commercial/noncommercial.   ----- Original Message ----- From: Mairi Morrison To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 9:26 PM Subject: Re: Do Not Call - the constitutional question i thought it was a given that commercial speech could be more highly regulated than other forms of _expression_. at the same time, I personally would find unsolicited charitble or political messages just as intrusive as commercial (or close) if I didn't make it a habit to screen all calls which I think is a very good method of making this all a non-issue.