4.4. SR 11-13-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

113 S. Ct. 1505 (Cite as: 507 U.S. 410, *442, 113 S.Ct. 1505, *'1523) Page 19 under Central Hudson because other types of gambling (e.g., horse racing) were permitted to be advertised to local residents. More to the point, in Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 101 S.Ct. 2882, 69 L.Ed.2d 800 (1981) (plurality opinion), wher~ we upheld San Diego's ban of offsite billboard advertising, we rejected the appellants' argument that the ban was invalid under Central Hudson because it did rmt extend to onsite billboard advertising. See 453 U.S., at 511, 101 S. Ct., at 2894 ("[W]hether onsite advertising is permitted or not, the prohibition of offsite advertising is directly related to the stated objectives of traffic safety and esthetics. This is not altered by the fact that the ordinance is underinclusive because it permits onsite advertising"). See also City Council *'1524 of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789, 810-811, 104 S. Ct. 2118, 2131- 2132, 80 L.Ed. 2d 772 (1984) (rejecting the argument that the city's prohibition against the posting of signs on public property could not be justified on esthetic grounds because it did not extend to the posting of signs on private property). Thus, the fact that Cincinnati's regulatory scheme is underinclusive *443 does not render its ban on respondents' newsracks unconstitutional. The Court offers an alternative rationale for invalidating the city's policy: viz., the distinction Cincinnati has drawn (between commercial and noncommercial speech) in deciding which newsracks to regulate "bears no relationship whatsoever to the particular interests that the city has asserted." Ante, at 1514 (emphasis in original). That is, because newsracks that disseminate noncommercial speech have the same physical characteristics as newsracks that disseminate commercial speech, and therefore undermine the city's safety and esthetic interests to the same degree, the city's decision to ban only those newsracks that disseminate commercial speech has nothing to do with its interests in regulating newsracks in the first place. The city does not contend otherwise; instead, it asserts that its policy is grounded in the distinction we have drawn between commercial and noncommercial speech. "In the absence of some basis for distinguishing between 'newspapers' and 'commercial handbills' that is relevant to an interest asserted by the city," however, the Court refuses "to recognize Cincinnati's bare assertion that the 'low value' of commercial speech is a sufficient justification for its selective and categorical ban on newsracks dispensing 'commercial handbills.'" Ante, at 1516. Thus, despite the fact that we have consistently distinguished between commercial and noncommercial speech for the purpose of determining whether the regulation of speech is permissible, the Court holds that in attempting to alleviate its newsrack problem Cincinnati may not choose to proceed incrementally by burdening only commercial speech first. Based on the different levels of protection we have accorded commercial and noncommercial speech, we have previously said that localities may not favor commercial over noncommercial speech in addressing similar urban problems, see Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, supra, 453 U.S., at 513, 101 S. Ct., at 2895 (plurality opinion), but before today we have never even suggested that *~.~.~. the converse holds true. It is not surprising, then, that the Court offers little in the way of precedent supporting its new rule. The cases it does cite involve challenges to the restriction of noncommercial speech in which we have refused to accept distinctions drawn between restricted and nonrestricted speech on the ground that they bore no relationship to the interests asserted for regulating the speech in the first place. See ante, at 1514, citing Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N: Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 120, 112 S.Ct. 501,510, 116 L.Ed. 2d 476 (1991); Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455, 465, 100 S. Ct. 2286, 2292, 65 L.Ed. 2d 263 (1980). Neither of these cases involved the regulation of commercial speech; nor did they involve a challenge to the permissibility of distinctions drawn between categories of speech that we have accorded different degrees of First Amendment protection. The Court's reliance on Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp., see ante, at 1515-1516, is also misplaced. In that case we said that the Copr. © West 2001 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works