Valentine v. Chrestensen
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Valentine v. Chrestensen | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||
| Argued March 31, 1942 Decided April 13, 1942 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||
| Commercial speech is not protected under the First Amendment. | ||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||
| Chief Justice: Harlan Fiske Stone Associate Justices: Owen Josephus Roberts, Hugo Black, Stanley Forman Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, James F. Byrnes, Robert H. Jackson |
||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||
| Majority by: Roberts |
Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 052 (1942),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that commercial speech is not protected under the First Amendment
Contents |
[edit] Introduction
The case started when the respondent, F.J. Chrestensen violated a New York City municipal ordinance (ยง318 of the Sanitary Code) which prohibited distributing printed handbills in the streets bearing "commercial advertising matter." Chrestensen was using the handbills to promote his exhibit of a World War I submarine that was moored at a State pier in the East River and open for the public if they paid the stated admission fee.
Chrestensen was told by the Police Commissioner of New York City, Lewis J. Valentine, that he could not distribute the handbills bearing the commercial or business advertising matter. Valentine also advised Chrestensen that he could only distribute handbills solely devoted to "information or a public protest."[1]
Chrestensen remade his handbill, by removing the admission fee on the front advertisement and on the reverse side placing a protest against the city's refusal.
[edit] Facts of the case
 |
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
[edit] Prior history
|
|
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
[edit] Decision of the Court
|
|
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
The court decided that "purely commercial advertising" is not protected under the first amendment. The court explained its decision as to why advertising did not afford the same protection as "political speech" under the first amendment because: a) advertising is not as important as political speech b) it is harder to chill advertising, which has a strong profit motive c) it's easier to verify ad claims than political claims, and therefore we have no need to tolerate false advertising
[edit] Concurring opinions
|
|
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
[edit] Dissenting opinions
|
|
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
[edit] Effects of the decision
|
|
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
[edit] Critical response
|
|
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
[edit] Subsequent history
|
|
Please help improve this section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. |
This case was later overturned by Va. State Board Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council (1976)
[edit] References
- Justia's US Supreme Court Center [2]
