Social Science

Thesis:

Advertising is a protected form of speech by the First Amendment. I will support the decision for the courts to regulate commercial speech as if it was unregulated the business practices could turn into an unethical form of expression. I will elaborate on the differences between commercial and non-commercial speech and why one is more federally regulated than another.

Introduction:

Factually state the First Amendment and how it protects commercial and non-commercial speech. Elude to how I will cover in the paper, the difference between the two, why I support the courts stricter form of commercial speech regulation.

Body:

Additionally, from above the paper will cover how some may disagree with my point of view, how I can refute or concede to those statements, yet still support why my thesis is the overwhelmingly correct position on the topic.

Conclusion:

I will work on tying together all the afore mentioned points and provide some commentary as to how I might envision regulation transpiring in the future due to advancements in technology/web 2.0 technologies and society in itself.

Synopsis

I have decided to cover in my paper the First Amendment and its protection, yet regulation, of commercial speech. Advertising has always intrigued me, and I think this is a wonderful opportunity to learn beyond the surface layer of marketing. I will support why I believe commercial speech should be protected, why it should be regulated more stringently over non-commercial and ultimately where the tweaking of regulation by the FTC may go in the future.

Works Cited:

Middleton, Kent, et al. The Law of Public Communication. Routledge, 2018.

Budzinski, Andrew C. “A Disclosure-Focused Approach to Compelled Commercial Speech.” Michigan Law Review, vol. 112, no. 7, May 2014, pp. 1305–1335. EBSCOhost, library.esc.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=96113507&site=eds-live.

“First Amendment — Commercial Speech — Second Circuit Holds That Prohibiting Truthful Off-Label Promotion of FDA-Approved Drugs by Pharmaceutical Representatives Violates First Amendment. — United States v. Caronia, 703 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2012).” Harvard Law Review, no. 2, 2013, p. 795. EBSCOhost, library.esc.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.23742025&site=eds-live.

“CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – FIRST AMENDMENT – COMPELLED COMMERCIAL SPEECH – D.C. CIRCUIT HOLDS THAT FDA RULE MANDATING GRAPHIC WARNING IMAGES ON CIGARETTE PACKAGING AND ADVERTISEMENTS VIOLATES FIRST AMENDMENT. — R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Food & Drug Administration, 696 F. 3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 2012).” Harvard Law Review, vol. 126, no. 3, Jan. 2013, pp. 818–825. EBSCOhost, library.esc.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=84740574&site=eds-live.

Myers, Cayce. “Full Length Article: What’s the Legal Definition of PR?: An Analysis of Commercial Speech and Public Relations.” Public Relations Review, vol. 42, Dec. 2016, pp. 821–831. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2016.10.005.

Bennigson, Tom. “Nike Revisited: Can Commercial Corporations Engage in Non-Commercial Speech?” Connecticut Law Review, no. 2, 2006, p. 379. EBSCOhost, library.esc.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsggo&AN=edsgcl.160559498&site=eds-live.

CEBULA, KERRI, and MARK DODDS. “Celebrity Endorsements and Congratulatory Messages: Jordan v. Jewel Food Stores: A Case of Right to Publicity versus Commercial Speech.” Journal of Brand Strategy, vol. 5, no. 1, Spring 2016, pp. 51–56. EBSCOhost, library.esc.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=116758326&site=eds-live.

Order now and get 10% discount on all orders above $50 now!!The professional are ready and willing handle your assignment.

ORDER NOW »»