Advertising is not protected by 1st amendment

The Court ruled that while the streets could be used to express opinions and information, the Constitution granted no such privilege to “purely commercial advertising.”  Commercial speech could be regulated by law without violating the First Amendment.

Abortion advertisements, it contained important public interest

This case altered the 1942 doctrine established by Chrestensen.  While it did not extend constitutional protection to all commercial messages (e.g. those that are deceptive or that promote illegality), it made clear that truthful advertising that conveys facts and info “of potential interest and value” to the general public merits considerable First Amendment protection.

In Central Hudson Gas and Electric v. Public Service Commission (1980), the SC set out a 4-part test to regulating commercial speech. Particularly impacted advertising of alcohol, tobacco, gambling, attorneys.

- Noncommercial use of a VCR does not violate the copyright law; it is fair use.

The landmark ruling protected makers of many technologies capable of infringing and non-infringing uses from liability in copyright lawsuits.

E.g., PCs, iPod, CD burners, Web browser, TiVO, etc.

“One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.”

The author has the right to control first publication of his original work – an important marketable subsidiary right.

Even if an article quotes directly only an “insubstantial portion” of a manuscript, if the portion used represents “the heart of the manuscript,” it is NOT fair use.

If copyright holder suffers financial loss, it is NOT fair use.

A teacher/student is permitted to make one copy of an article, a chapter from a book, or a sound recording for study purposes or for use in a classroom presentation.

A teacher can make multiple copies on a “spontaneous” basis for distribution to a class.  But such a copy should not be a part of a syllabus.

Libraries should not engage in copying that would substitute for buying the publication involved

Unauthorized copying of materials by a for-profit enterprise that sells the copied materials to students is an infringement of the Copyright Act.

This landmark decision determined for the first time that the 1873 Comstock Act’s obscenity provisions were constitutional.  The SC defined obscenity as a form of express that is both:

1. worthless (“utterly without redeeming social importance”); and

2. sexually lewd, meaning (a) “whether to the average person” (b) “applying contemporary community standards (c) “the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole” (d) “appeals to prurient interest.”

This case established the three-part “Miller test” to define obscene speech:

1. Whether the average person, applying contemporary standards of the state or local community, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;

2. Whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law;

3. Whether the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value (sometimes called the “SLAPS test”)

Use of children in non-obscene sexual performances is prohibited 

Fairness Doctrine upheld by SC

- Generally the broadcast industry disliked the fairness doctrine, claiming that it inhibited rather than promoted presentation of controversial views.

Protected under the First Amendment but not permitted in broadcast

SC ruled that there is no constitutional right of access to the press, not even in “one-newspaper towns”

The Act required that cable systems “must carry” all local television stations, which the Supreme Court upheld in Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC (1997)

Earlier in Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC (1994) the SC upheld cable regulation from the point of view of “access”

Rationale: Cable, as a medium, does not have any limitations of broadcast such as scarcity and interference