Abstract
Government, the Supreme Court has told us, has a lot of freedom to regulate commercial advertising on the ground that it’s false or misleading, but almost none to restrict its content on any other ground. That distinction isn’t justifiable; it never has been. But it relates to a parallel tension in the law’s treatment of speech by for-profit corporations. Both the law of commercial speech and the law of corporate speech are riven, rooted in foundational contradictions between the libertarian principles bound up in conventional first amendment philosophy and an alternative approach recognizing the ways private power distorts public discourse. Nuanced understanding of what commercial speech and corporate speech have in common, and what they are not, supports the conclusion that the Supreme Court is taking the law of commercial speech in the wrong direction.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
