Dennis Nicholls
Senior HTF Member
And the company's right to promote is protected by something called the First Amendment.
Sounds downright un-American! :p)
And the company's right to promote is protected by something called the First Amendment.
Sounds downright un-American! :p)
"It's made by Bose, it has the best sound quality in the world".Whoa. On behalf of the home theater forum and bose, I'd like to thank the moderators for this. I have invited other speaker brands to be auditioned with us, and we would like to — they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious reviews that sell fictitious products. We live in a time where we have a manufacturer selling us Bose for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of jewel cubes or fictition of no posting specs, we are against you, Mr. Bose. Shame on you, Mr. Bose, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.
Whoa. On behalf of the home theater forum and bose, I'd like to thank the moderators for this. I have invited other speaker brands to be auditioned with us, and we would like to — they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction. We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times. We live in the time where we have fictitious reviews that sell fictitious products. We live in a time where we have a manufacturer selling us Bose for fictitious reasons. Whether it's the fictition of jewel cubes or fictition of no posting specs, we are against you, Mr. Bose. Shame on you, Mr. Bose, shame on you. And any time you got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up. Thank you very much.
LMAO
The First Amendment does not in any way protect commercial speech and was never intended to.The Supreme Court disagrees. The Court's decisions for the last 30 years have recognized a degree of First Amendment protection for commercial speech, but to a lesser extent than other forms of speech. The exact extent of such protection is a continued source of debate among scholars and probably the justices themselves.
There are plenty of resources, but try here:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj..commercial.htm
M.
I understand that THE FEDERALIST PAPERS by Hamilton, Madison, etc. were sold commercially; this did not exempt them from First Amendment protection.At the time The Federalist first appeared between covers there was no First Ammendment. The Constitution hadn't been ratified, and there was no Bill of Rights. But this is a moot point anyway.
That something appears in a book or newspaper that is sold does not make it "commercial speech". "Commercial speech" refers specifically to advertising - that is, speech that in and of itself serves a commercial function. John Smith's new novel is not commercial speech, even though the publisher sells it and both it and Mr. Smith expect to make a profit from doing so. The full page advertisement in The New York Times Book Review encouraging readers to buy the book is commercial speech - and is subject to certain restrictions.
Regards,
Joe
A quarter of a century ago, the Court held that commercial speech, usually defined as speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction, is protected by the First Amendment. Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 762 (1976). "The commercial marketplace, like other spheres of our social and cultural life, provides a forum where ideas and information flourish." Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U. S. 761, 767 (1993).http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...0&invol=00-276
You might also want to read the full text of Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy (Blackmun, J., for a 7-justice majority), which lays out the history of the Court's "commercial speech" jurisprudence through 1975. Basically, your argument is about 30 years out of date.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...748&pageno=762
M.
I am not a lawyerYes, that's become evident.
M.