testa-j%OSU-20@OHIO-STATE.ARPA (11/14/86)
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU> ...[discussion about free speech]... > So what rights do businessmen have? Less than the rest of us? The >supreme court seems to think so. Several times in recent years they >have concluded that "commercial speech" is less protected that other >forms. This term "commercial speech" does not appear anywhere in the >constitution. Does anyone know where it came from? Marx, perhaps? > They have ruled that cigarettes cannot be advertised on radio or >TV, and seem close to ruling that they cannot be advertised in the >print media either. Nobody hates cigarettes more than I do, and I >make it a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I wouldn't be so sure about that . . . >point never to buy magazines in which cigarettes are advertised, and >to encourage others to do the same, but I would be willing to fight >to protect the tobacco companies' freedom of speech. I couldn't >disagree with their message more if they were advertising communism, >but they have the right to say what they choose no matter how >repugnant to how many or to whom. I am not familiar with the DETAILS of the ban on cigarette advertising on TV, so i have a question: is the ban on the companies who wish to present this speech, or on companies who wish to SELL advertising time/space? I imagine Keith will object to either, but i believe objecting to restrictions on what one may sell is different than objecting to restrictions on what one may say. I am not saying whether or not it is better or worse. For example, if the ban on magazine advertising were imposed, would it be illegal to publish a magazine such as "Tobacco World"? (a name i just made up, which may or may not correspond to an actual magazine) ~joe testa~ -------