Law Commons^™

Compelled Commercial Disclosures: Zauderer’S Application To Non-Misleading Commercial Speech, Alexis Mason

University of Miami Law Review

In 1980, the Supreme Court held that a prohibition on commercial speech is subject to intermediate scrutiny. Roughly five years later, in Zauderer, the Court provided guidance on specific instances in which the government may compel commercial speech. The Court held that a requirement that goods or services disclose “factual and uncontroversial” information is constitutional so long as the requirement is not unduly burdensome, and the requirement is “reasonably related to the State’s interest in preventing deception of consumers.” This holding applied a rational basis standard of review to compelled commercial speech aimed at curing deception of consumers.

Despite …

Harmonizing The Tension Between The First Amendment And Publicity Rights And Finding The Right Balance: Discerning How Much Freedom Is Warranted And What Needs Protection, William Buchsbaum

The University of Cincinnati Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal

This paper examines the tension between the First Amendment and Publicity Rights considering why and how friction is emerging, the legal underpinnings and theories behind the development of publicity rights and how to reconcile this with values raised in support of the First Amendment. This collision course of rights occurs where property interests have vested in human identity itself which brings us face to face with the outer limits of free speech and expression under the First Amendment and evens tests the notion of how we define speech. The paper takes a dive into some of the currently arising issues …

Playing Word Games With New York’S No Surcharge Law, Katie Coggins

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Is The First Amendment Obsolete?, Tim Wu

Faculty Scholarship

The First Amendment was brought to life in a period, the twentieth century, when the political speech environment was markedly different than today’s. With respect to any given issue, speech was scarce and limited to a few newspapers, pamphlets or magazines. The law was embedded, therefore, with the presumption that the greatest threat to free speech was direct punishment of speakers by government.

Today, in the internet and social media age, it is no longer speech that is scarce – rather, it is the attention of listeners. And those who seek to control speech use new methods that rely on …