Are not NYT & Harvard companies of some sort? Why should they be protected under the 1A but not other companies?
Commercial speech is protected under the 1st Amendment. It can be restricted if it passes the Central Hudson test:
1. The speech regulated is fraudulent, misleading, or proposes an illegal transaction; or All of the following elements are present: a. The government's interest in regulating the speech is substantial; b. The restriction directly advances the government interest; and c. The restriction is no more extensive than necessary to advance the government interest.
Since the early days of our country, there has been a distinction between expressive organizations (like the New York Times -- a company that primarily engages in activities protected by the 1st Amendment -- publishing an article on how Bob's Chicken will make you sick) and commercial speech (Bill's Chicken, a competitor, publishing an article on how Bob's Chicken will make you sick.)
Both Bill's Chicken and the New York Times have freedom of speech. But commercial speech can be restricted if it's fraudulent or misleading, whereas expressive organizations are given far more leeway. That seems fairly common sense to me.