|
113 S. Ct. 1505
<br />(Cite as: 507 U.S. 410, *436, 113 S.Ct. 1505, *'1520)
<br />
<br />Page 16
<br />
<br />hold that truthful, noncoercive commercial
<br />speech concerning lawful activities is entitled
<br />to full First Amendment protection. As I
<br />wrote in Central Hudson, "intermediate
<br />scrutiny is appropriate for a restraint on
<br />commercial speech designed ' to protect
<br />consumers from misleading or coercive speech,
<br />or a regulation related to the time, place, or
<br />manner of commercial speech." 447 U.S., at
<br />573, 100 S. Ct., at 2355. [FN4]-But none of
<br />the "commonsense differences," Virginia State
<br />Bd. of Pharmacy, 425 U.S., at 771, n. 24, 96
<br />S. Ct., at 1830-1831, n. 24, between
<br />commercial and other speech "justify relaxed
<br />scrutiny of restraints that suppress truthful,
<br />nondeceptive, noncoercive commercial
<br />speech." Central Hudson, 447 U.S., at 578, 100
<br />S. Ct., at 2357 (opinion concurring in
<br />judgment).
<br />
<br />FN4. I made no mention in Central Hudson of
<br />commercial speech proposing illegal activities, but I
<br />do not quarrel with the proposition that government
<br />may suppress such speech altogether. See
<br />Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on
<br />Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 388, 93 S. Ct. 2553,
<br />2560, 37 L.Ed. 2d 669 (1973). See also Bates v.
<br />State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350, 384, 97 S. Ct.
<br />2691, 2709, 53 L.Ed. 2d 810 (1977).
<br />
<br />*437 The commercial publications at issue in
<br />this case illustrate the absurdity of treating
<br />all commercial speech as less valuable than all
<br />noncommercial speech. Respondent Harmon
<br />Publishing Company, Inc., publishes and
<br />*'1521 distributes a free magazine containing
<br />listings and photographs of residential
<br />properties. Like the "For Sale" signs this
<br />Court, in Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro,
<br />431 U.S. 85, 97 S. Ct. 1614, 52 L.Ed.2d 155
<br />(1977), held could not be banned, the
<br />information contained in Harmon's
<br />publication "bear[s] on one of the most
<br />important decisions [individuals] have a right
<br />to make: where to live and raise their
<br />families." M., at 96, 97 S. Ct., at 1620.
<br />Respondent Discovery Network, Inc.,
<br />advertises the availability of adult
<br />educational, recreational, and social programs.
<br />Our cases have consistently recognized the
<br />importance of education to the professional
<br />and personal development of the individual.
<br />
<br />See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S.
<br />483, 493, 74 S.Ct. 686, 691, 98 L. Ed. 873
<br />(1954). The "value" of respondents'
<br />commercial speech, at least to those who
<br />receive it, certainly exceeds the value of the
<br />offensive, though political, slogan displayed on
<br />the petitioner's jacket in Cohen v. California,
<br />403 U.S. 15, 91 S. Ct. 1780, 29 L.Ed. 2d 284
<br />(1971).
<br />
<br />I think it highly unlikely that according
<br />truthful, noncoercive commercial speech the
<br />full protection of the First Amendment will
<br />erode the level of that protection. See post, at
<br />1522 (dissenting opinion); Ohralik v. Ohio State
<br />Bar Assn., 436 U.S., at 456, 98 S. Ct., at 1918.
<br />I have predicted that "the Court will never
<br />provide child pornography or cigarette
<br />advertising the level of protection customarily
<br />granted political speech." See R.A.V.v. St.
<br />Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 415, 112 S.Ct. 2538, 120
<br />L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (opinion concurring in
<br />judgment). Yet I do not believe that
<br />protecting truthful advertising will test this
<br />Nation's commitment to the First Amendment
<br />to any greater extent than protecting offensive
<br />political speech. See, e.g., Texas v. Johnson,
<br />491 U.S. 397, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed. 2d 342
<br />(1989) (flag burning); National Socialist Parry of
<br />America v. Skokie, 432 U.S. 43, 97 S.Ct. 2205,
<br />53 L.Ed.2d 96 (1977) (Nazi *438 march
<br />through Jewish neighborhood); Cohen v.
<br />California, 403 U.S. 15, 91 S. Ct. 1780, 29
<br />L. Ed.2d 284 (1971) (profane antiwar slogan).
<br />The very fact that government remains free,
<br />in my view, to ensure that commercial speech
<br />is not deceptive or coercive, to prohibit
<br />commercial speech proposing illegal activities,
<br />and to impose reasonable time, place, or
<br />manner restrictions on commercial speech
<br />greatly reduces the risk that protecting
<br />truthful commercial speech will dilute the
<br />level of First Amendment protection for
<br />speech generally.
<br />
<br />I am heartened by the Court's decision today
<br />to reject the extreme extension of Central
<br />Hudson's logic, and I hope the Court ultimately
<br />will come to abandon Central Hudson's analysis
<br />entirely in favor of one that affords full
<br />protection for truthful, noncoercive
<br />commercial speech about lawful activities.
<br />
<br />Copr. © West 2001 No Claim to
<br />
<br />Orig. U.S. Govt. Works
<br />
<br />
<br />
|