Valentine V. Chrestensen Case Study
The First Amendment states that “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” (http://www.law.cornell.edu).
Over the years there have been many court cases that try to help decipher what is mean by the 1st amendment. In 1942 commercial speech was introduced by the Supreme Court with the Valentine V. Chrestensen case. Commercial Speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the intent of making a profit. It is economic in nature and usually has the intent of convincing the audience to partake …show more content…
Hornell also argued just because some people were offended by the name “Crazy Horse” didn’t substantiate the matter enough to ban the use of the name. In addition, Hornell argued that the company was not targeting one specific group to market their product to and especially not gearing marketing toward Native Americans. Congress claimed that their interest was to protect and preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the Native Americans by preventing the enhanced appeal of alcohol with the name Crazy Horse (Halbert & Ingulli, …show more content…
In saying that, it is very difficult to say when the line has been crossed between free speech and commercial speech. The big distinction with commercial speech is that it usually falls under 3 categories: advertisement, product/service related, and economic motivation. In a 1978 a decision, Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, the Court stated that “We have not discarded the "common-sense" distinction between speech proposing a commercial transaction, which occurs in an area traditionally subject to government regulation, and other varieties of speech. To require a parity of constitutional protection for commercial and noncommercial speech alike could invite dilution, simply by a leveling process, of the force of the Amendment's guarantee with respect to the latter kind of speech. Rather than subject the First Amendment to such a devitalization, we instead have afforded commercial speech a limited measure of protection, commensurate with its subordinate position in the scale of First Amendment values, while allowing modes of regulation that might be impermissible in the realm of noncommercial expression” (http://www.wikipedia.com
Over the years there have been many court cases that try to help decipher what is mean by the 1st amendment. In 1942 commercial speech was introduced by the Supreme Court with the Valentine V. Chrestensen case. Commercial Speech is speech done on behalf of a company or individual for the intent of making a profit. It is economic in nature and usually has the intent of convincing the audience to partake …show more content…
Hornell also argued just because some people were offended by the name “Crazy Horse” didn’t substantiate the matter enough to ban the use of the name. In addition, Hornell argued that the company was not targeting one specific group to market their product to and especially not gearing marketing toward Native Americans. Congress claimed that their interest was to protect and preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the Native Americans by preventing the enhanced appeal of alcohol with the name Crazy Horse (Halbert & Ingulli, …show more content…
In saying that, it is very difficult to say when the line has been crossed between free speech and commercial speech. The big distinction with commercial speech is that it usually falls under 3 categories: advertisement, product/service related, and economic motivation. In a 1978 a decision, Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, the Court stated that “We have not discarded the "common-sense" distinction between speech proposing a commercial transaction, which occurs in an area traditionally subject to government regulation, and other varieties of speech. To require a parity of constitutional protection for commercial and noncommercial speech alike could invite dilution, simply by a leveling process, of the force of the Amendment's guarantee with respect to the latter kind of speech. Rather than subject the First Amendment to such a devitalization, we instead have afforded commercial speech a limited measure of protection, commensurate with its subordinate position in the scale of First Amendment values, while allowing modes of regulation that might be impermissible in the realm of noncommercial expression” (http://www.wikipedia.com