Hacker News Reader

Comment by caseydurfee | Hacker News Reader

None of these are commercial speech. For crying out loud. Commercial speech is speech done by a private corporation for the purposes of furthering their own economic interests. Even commercial speech is protected as long as it isn't fraudulent.

I don't know what you mean by "potential restriction". We've had restrictions on commercial speech since the early days of our country.

View on HN

> Commercial speech has been defined by the Supreme Court as speech where the speaker is more likely to be engaged in commerce, where the intended audience is commercial or actual or potential consumers, and where the content of the message is commercial in character.

Commercial speech, such as advertisements, has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be entitled to less protection under the First Amendment than noncommercial speech. Under the First Amendment, noncommercial speech is entitled to full protection, and any sort of content-based regulation is only valid if it can withstand strict scrutiny. However, commerical speech is not given such deference. For a content-based regulation of commercial speech to be valid, it only must withstand intermediate scrutiny.

Additionally, commercial speech that is false or misleading is not entitled to any protection under the First Amendment, and therefore can be prohibited entirely.[0]

Sorry, I should have said political speech more generally by a commercial entity

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commercial_speech

Reply on news.ycombinator.com