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.
|
- Re: Do Not Call - the constitutional question Mae Kuykendall
- Re: Do Not Call - the constitutional question Mairi Morrison
- Do Not Call - the constitutional answer? Marty Lederman
- Do Not Call - the constitutional answer? Marty Lederman
- Re: Do Not Call - the constitutional question Mairi Morrison
- Re: Do Not Call - the constitutional question Mark Kende
- Re: Do Not Call - the constitutional question Randall Bezanson
- Re: Do Not Call - the constitutional questio... Robert Sheridan
- Re: Do Not Call - the constitutional question Robin Charlow
- Re: Do Not Call - the constitutional question Parry, John
- Re: Do Not Call - the constitutional question Marty Lederman
- Re: Do Not Call - the constitutional question Thai, Joseph T