Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc.

2/25/2016 Cincinnativ.DiscoveryNetwork,Inc.::507U.S.410(1993)::JustiaU.S.
SupremeCourtCenter
Justia U.S.Law U.S.CaseLaw U.S.SupremeCourt Volume507

Cincinnativ.DiscoveryNetwork,Inc. Case
ReceivefreedailysummariesofnewU.S.SupremeCourtopinions.
Enteryouremail.
SUBSCRIBE
Cincinnativ.DiscoveryNetwork,Inc.
507U.S.410(1993)
AnnotatethisCase
Opinion PDF
Syllabus | Case
OCTOBERTERM,1992
Syllabus
CITYOFCINCINNATIv.DISCOVERYNETWORK,INC.,ETAL.
CERTIORARITOTHEUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSFORTHESIXTH
CIRCUIT
No.911200.ArguedNovember9,1992DecidedMarch24,1993
In1989,petitionercityauthorizedrespondentcompaniestoplace62freestanding
newsracksonpublicpropertyforthepurposeofdistributingfreemagazinesthatconsisted
primarilyofadvertisementsforrespondents'services.In1990,motivatedbyitsinterestin
thesafetyandattractiveappearanceofitsstreetsandsidewalks,thecityrevoked
respondents'permitsonthegroundthatthemagazineswere"commercialhandbill[s],"
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/507/410/case.html 1/41
2/25/2016 Cincinnativ.DiscoveryNetwork,Inc.::507U.S.410(1993)::JustiaU.S.SupremeCourtCenter
whosedistributiononpublicpropertywasprohibitedbyapreexistingordinance.In
respondents'ensuinglawsuit,theDistrictCourtconcludedthatthiscategoricalbanviolated
theFirstAmendmentunderthe"reasonablefit"standardappliedtotheregulationof
commercialspeechinBoardofTrusteesofStateUniversityofN.Y.v.Fox,492U.S.469.
TheCourtofAppealsaffirmed.
Held:Thecity'sselectiveandcategoricalbanonthedistribution,vianewsrack,of
"commercialhandbills"isnotconsistentwiththedictatesoftheFirstAmendment.Pp.416
431.
(a)Therecordamplysupportstheconclusionthatthecityhasnotmetitsburdenof
establishinga"reasonablefit"betweenitslegitimateinterestsinsafetyandestheticsand
themeansitchosetoservethoseinterests.Theordinance'soutdatedprohibitionofhandbill
distributionwasenactedlongbeforeanyconcernaboutnewsracksdeveloped,forthe
apparentpurposeofpreventingthekindofvisualblightcausedbylittering,ratherthanany
harmassociatedwithpermanent,freestandingdispensingdevices.Thefactthatthecity
failedtoaddressitsrecentlydevelopedconcernaboutnewsracksbyregulatingtheirsize,
shape,appearance,ornumberindicatesthatithasnot"carefullycalculated"thecostsand
benefitsassociatedwiththeburdenonspeechimposedbyitsprohibition.SeeFox,492U.
S.,at480.Thelowercourtscorrectlyruledthatthebenefittobederivedfromtheremovalof
62newsracksoutofatotalof1,5002,000onpublicpropertywassmall.Pp.416418.
(b)TheCourtrejectsthecity'sargumentthat,becauseeverydecreaseintheoverall
numberofnewsracksonitssidewalksnecessarilyeffectsanincreaseinsafetyandan
improvementintheattractivenessofthecityscape,thereisaclosefitbetweenitsbanon
newsracks
411
dispensing"commercialhandbills"anditsinterestsinsafetyandesthetics.Thisargumentis
premiseduponthedistinctionthecityhasdrawnbetweencommercialspeechsuchas
respondents',whichisviewedashavingonlyalowvalue,andtheassertedlymorevaluable
noncommercialspeechof"newspapers,"whosedistributiononpubliclandisspecifically
authorizedbyseparateprovisionsofthecitycode.Theargumentattachesmoreimportance
tothatdistinctionthantheCourt'scaseswarrantandseriouslyunderestimatesthevalueof
commercialspeech.Moreover,becausecommercialandnoncommercialpublicationsare
equallyresponsibleforthesafetyconcernsandvisualblightthatmotivatedthecity,the
distinctionbearsnorelationshipwhatsoevertotheadmittedlylegitimateinterestsasserted
bythecityandisanimpermissiblemeansofrespondingtothoseinterests.Thus,onthis
record,thecityhasfailedtomakeashowingthatwouldjustifyitsdifferentialtreatmentof
thetwotypesofnewsracks.pp.418428.
(c)Becausethecity'sregulationofnewsracksispredicatedonthedifferenceincontent
betweenordinarynewspapersandcommercialspeech,itisnotcontentneutralandcannot
qualifyasavalidtime,place,ormannerrestrictiononprotectedspeech.See,e.g.,Wardv.
RockAgainstRacism,491U.S.781,791.Pp.428431.
946F.2d464,affirmed.
STEVENS,J.,deliveredtheopinionoftheCourt,inwhichBLACKMUN,O'CONNOR,
SCALIA,KENNEDY,andSOUTER,JJ.,joined.BLACKMUN,J.,filedaconcurringopinion,
post,p.431.REHNQUIST,C.J.,filedadissentingopinion,inwhichWHITEandTHOMAS,
JJ.,joined,post,p.438.
MarkS.Yurickarguedthecauseforpetitioner.WithhimonthebriefswasFayD.Dupuis.
MarcD.Mezibovarguedthecauseforrespondents.WithhimonthebriefwasMarthaK.
Landesberg.*
*RichardRuda,MichaelG.Dzialo,andPeterBuscemifiledabrieffortheU.S.Conference
ofMayorsetal.asamicicuriaeurgingreversal.
BriefsofamicicuriaeurgingaffirmancewerefiledfortheAmericanAdvertisingFederation
etal.byRichardE.Wiley,LawrenceWSecrestIII,HowardH.Bell,JohnF.Kamp,DavidS.
Versfelt,RobertJ.Levering,andValerieSchultefortheAssociationofNationalAdvertisers,
Inc.,etal.byBurtNeuborne,GilbertH.Weil,RandolphZ.Volkell,JohnF.Kamp,David
Versfelt,JanS.Amundson,QuentinRiegel,andEdwardDunkelbergerfortheInstitutefor
JusticebyWilliamH.MellorIIIandClintBolickfortheLearningResourcesNetworkby
BruceR.
412
JUSTICESTEVENSdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt.Motivatedbyitsinterestinthe
safetyandattractiveappearanceofitsstreetsandsidewalks,thecityofCincinnatihas
refusedtoallowrespondentstodistributetheircommercialpublicationsthrough
freestandingnewsrackslocatedonpublicproperty.Thequestionpresentediswhetherthis
refusalisconsistentwiththeFirstAmendment.1InagreementwiththeDistrictCourtandthe
CourtofAppeals,weholdthatitisnot.
RespondentDiscoveryNetwork,Inc.,isengagedinthebusinessofprovidingadult
educational,recreational,andsocialprogramstoindividualsintheCincinnatiarea.It
advertisesthoseprogramsinafreemagazinethatitpublishesninetimesayear.Although
thesemagazinesconsistprimarilyofpromotionalmaterialpertainingtoDiscovery'scourses,
theyalsoincludesomeinformationaboutcurrenteventsofgeneralinterest.Approximately
onethirdofthesemagazinesaredistributedthroughthe38newsracksthatthecity
authorizedDiscoverytoplaceonpublicpropertyin1989.
RespondentHarmonPublishingCompany,Inc.,publishesanddistributesafreemagazine
thatadvertisesrealestateforsaleatvariouslocationsthroughouttheUnitedStates.The
magazinecontainslistingsandphotographsofavailable
StewartandfortheWashingtonLegalFoundationbyCharlesFried,RichardWillard,Daniel
J.Popeo,andRichardA.Samp.
BriefsofamicicuriaewerefiledfortheCityofNewYorkbyO.PeterSherwood,Leonard
Koerner,andPaulT.RephenandfortheAmericanNewspaperPublishersAssociationet
al.byP.CameronDeVore,MarshallJ.Nelson,JohnF.Sturm,ReneMilam,HaroldW
Fuson,Jr.,DavidM.Olive,RichardJ.Tofel,BarbaraWWall,andPeterStone.
1TheFirstAmendmentprovides,inpart:"Congressshallmakenolaw...abridgingthe
freedomofspeech,orofthepress...."TheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenth
Amendmenthasbeenconstruedtomakethisprohibitionapplicabletostateaction.See,e.
g.,Strombergv.California,283U.S.359(1931)Lovellv.Griffin,303U.S.444(1938).
413
residentialpropertiesinthegreaterCincinnatiarea,andalsoincludessomeinformation
aboutinterestrates,markettrends,andotherrealestatematters.In1989,Harmonreceived
thecity'spermissiontoinstall24newsracksatapprovedlocations.About15%ofits
distributionintheCincinnatiareaisthroughthosedevices.
InMarch1990,thecity'sDirectorofPublicWorksnotifiedeachoftherespondentsthatits
permittousedispensingdevicesonpublicpropertywasrevoked,andorderedthe
newsracksremovedwithin30days.Eachnoticeexplainedthatrespondent'spublication
wasa"commercialhandbill"withinthemeaningof7141CoftheMunicipalCode2and
therefore71423ofthecode3prohibiteditsdistributiononpublicproperty.Respondents
weregrantedadministrativehearingsandreviewbytheSidewalkAppealsCommittee.
AlthoughtheCommitteedidnotmodifythecity'sposition,
2Thatsectionprovides:
"'CommercialHandbill'shallmeananyprintedorwrittenmatter,dodger,circular,leaflet,
pamphlet,paper,bookletoranyotherprintedorotherwisereproducedoriginalorcopiesof
anymatterofliterature:
"(a)Whichadvertisesforsaleanymerchandise,product,commodityorthingor
"(b)Whichdirectsattentiontoanybusinessormercantileorcommercialestablishment,or
otheractivity,forthepurposeofdirectlypromotingtheinterestthereofbysalesor
"(c)Whichdirectsattentiontooradvertisesanymeeting,theatricalperformance,exhibition
oreventofanykindforwhichanadmissionfeeischargedforthepurposeofprivategainor
profit."CincinnatiMunicipalCode7141C(1992).
3Thatsectionprovides:
"Nopersonshallthrowordepositanycommercialornoncommercialhandbillinorupon
anysidewalk,streetorotherpublicplacewithinthecity.Norshallanypersonhandoutor
distributeorsellanycommercialhandbillinanypublicplace.Provided,however,thatitshall
notbeunlawfulonanysidewalk,streetorotherpublicplacewithinthecityforanypersonto
handoutordistribute,withoutchargetothereceiverthereof,anynoncommercialhandbill
toanypersonwillingtoacceptit,exceptwithinoraroundthecityhallbuilding."71423.
414
itagreedtoallowthedispensingdevicestoremaininplacependingajudicialdetermination
oftheconstitutionalityofitsprohibition.Respondentsthencommencedthislitigationinthe
UnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofOhio.
AfteranevidentiaryhearingtheDistrictCourtconcludedthat"theregulatoryscheme
advancedbytheCityofCincinnaticompletelyprohibitingthedistributionofcommercial
handbillsonthepublicrightofwayviolatestheFirstAmendment."4Thecourtfoundthat
bothpublicationswere"commercialspeech"entitledtoFirstAmendmentprotectionbecause
theyconcernedlawfulactivityandwerenotmisleading.Whileitrecognizedthatacity"may
regulatepublicationdispensingdevicespursuanttoitssubstantialinterestinpromoting
safetyandestheticsonoraboutthepublicrightofway,"5theDistrictCourtheld,relyingon
BoardofTrusteesofStateUniversityofN.Y.v.Fox,492U.S.469(1989),thatthecityhad
theburdenofestablishing"areasonable'fit'betweenthelegislature'sendsandthemeans
chosentoaccomplishthoseends."App.toPet.forCert.23a.(quotingFox,492U.S.,at
480).Itexplainedthatthe"fit"inthiscasewasunreasonablebecausethenumberof
newsracksdispensingcommercialhandbillswas"minute"comparedwiththetotalnumber
(1,5002,000)onthepublicrightofway,andbecausetheyaffectedpublicsafetyinonlya
minimalway.Moreover,thepracticesinothercommunitiesindicatedthatthecity'ssafety
andestheticinterestscouldbeadequatelyprotected"byregulatingthesize,shape,number
orplacementofsuchdevices."App.toPet.forCert.24a.6
4App.toPet.forCert.25a.5Id.,at23a.
6"Suchregulation,"theDistrictCourtnoted,"allows[a]citytocontrolthevisualeffectofthe
devicesandtokeepthemfrominterferingwithpublicsafetywithoutcompletelyprohibiting
thespeechinquestion."Id.,at24a.
415
Onappeal,thecityarguedthatsinceanumberofcourtshadheldthatacompletebanon
theuseofnewsracksdispensingtraditionalnewspaperswouldbeunconstitutional,7and
thatthe"Constitution...accordsalesserprotectiontocommercialspeechthantoother
constitutionallyguaranteedexpression,"CentralHudsonGas&ElectricCorp.v.Public
ServoComm'nofN.Y.,447U.S.557,563(1980),itspreferentialtreatmentofnewspapers
overcommercialpublicationswasapermissiblemethodofservingitslegitimateinterestin
ensuringsafestreetsandregulatingvisualblight.8TheCourtofAppealsdisagreed,holding
thatthelesserstatusofcommercialspeechisrelevantonlywhenitsregulationwas
designedeithertopreventfalseormisleadingadvertising,ortoalleviatedistinctiveadverse
effectsofthespecificspeechatissue.BecauseCincinnatisoughttoregulateonlythe
"manner"inwhichrespondents'publicationsweredistributed,asopposedtotheircontentor
anyharmcausedbytheircontent,thecourtreasonedthatrespondents'publicationshad
"highvalue"forpurposesoftheFox"reasonablefit"test.946F.2d464,471(CA61991)
(italicsomitted).Applyingthattest,theCourtofAppealsagreedwiththeDistrictCourtthat
theburdenplacedonspeech"cannotbejustifiedbythepaltrygainsinsafetyandbeauty
achievedbytheordinance."Ibid.9TheimportanceoftheCourtof
7SeeSentinelCommunicationsCO.V.Watts,936F.2d1189,11961197(CA111991),and
casescitedtherein.
8InthewordsoftheCourtofAppeals:
"This'lesserprotection'affordedcommercialspeechiscrucialtoCincinnati'sargumenton
appeal.Cincinnatiarguesthatplacingtheentireburdenofachievingitsgoalofsaferstreets
andamoreharmoniouslandscapeoncommercialspeechisjustifiedbythislesser
protection."946F.2d464,469(CA61991).Seealsoid.,at471("The[city's]defenseofthat
ordinancerestssolelyonthelowvalueallegedlyaccordedtocommercialspeechin
general").
9TheCourtofAppealsalsonotedthatthegeneralbanonthedistributionofhandbillshad
beenonthebookslongbeforethenewsrackproblemarose.Id.,at473.
416
Appealsdecision,togetherwiththedramaticgrowthintheuseofnewsracksthroughoutthe
country,10promptedourgrantofcertiorari.503U.S.918(1992).
II
Thereisnoclaiminthiscasethatthereisanythingunlawfulormisleadingaboutthe
contentsofrespondents'publications.Moreover,respondentsdonotchallengetheir
characterizationas"commercialspeech."Nordorespondentsquestionthesubstantialityof
thecity'sinterestinsafetyandesthetics.Itwas,therefore,properfortheDistrictCourtand
theCourtofAppealstojudgethevalidityofthecity'sprohibitionunderthestandardsweset
forthinCentralHudsonandFoxYItwasthecity'sburdentoestablisha"reasonablefit"
betweenitslegitimateinterestsinsafetyandestheticsanditschoiceofalimitedand
selectiveprohibitionofnewsracksasthemeanschosentoservethoseinterests.12
10Weareadvisedthatalmosthalfofthesinglecopysalesofnewspapersarenow
distributedthroughnewsracks.SeeBriefforAmericanNewspaperPublishersAssociationet
al.asAmiciCuriae2.
11WhiletheCourtofAppealsultimatelyappliedthestandardssetforthinCentralHudson
andFox,itsanalysisatleastsuggestedthatthosestandardsmightnotapplytothetypeof
regulationatissueinthiscase.Forifcommercialspeechisentitledto"lesserprotection"
onlywhentheregulationisaimedateitherthecontentofthespeechortheparticular
adverseeffectsstemmingfromthatcontent,itwouldseemtofollowthataregulationthatis
notsodirectedshouldbeevaluatedunderthestandardsapplicabletoregulationsonfully
protectedspeech,notthemorelenientstandardsbywhichwejudgeregulationson
commercialspeech.BecauseweconcludethatCincinnati'sbanoncommercialnewsracks
cannotwithstandscrutinyunderCentralHudsonandFox,weneednotdecidewhetherthat
policyshouldbesubjectedtomoreexactingreview.
12AswestatedinFox:
"[W]hilewehaveinsistedthatthefreeflowofcommercialinformationisvaluableenoughto
justifyimposingonwouldberegulatorsthecostsofdistinguishing...theharmlessfromthe
harmful,wehavenotgonesofarastoimposeuponthemtheburdenofdemonstratingthat
thedistinguishmentis100%complete,orthatthemannerofrestrictionisabsolutelythe
leastseverethatwillachievethedesiredend.Whatour
417
Thereisamplesupportintherecordfortheconclusionthatthecitydidnot"establishthe
reasonablefitwerequire."Fox,492U.S.,at480.Theordinanceonwhichitreliedwasan
outdatedprohibitionagainstthedistributionofanycommercialhandbillsonpublicproperty.
Itwasenactedlongbeforeanyconcernaboutnewsracksdeveloped.Itsapparentpurpose
wastopreventthekindofvisualblightcausedbylittering,ratherthananyharmassociated
withpermanent,freestandingdispensingdevices.Thefactthatthecityfailedtoaddressits
recentlydevelopedconcernaboutnewsracksbyregulatingtheirsize,shape,appearance,
ornumberindicatesthatithasnot"carefullycalculated"thecostsandbenefitsassociated
withtheburdenonspeechimposedbyitsprohibition.13Thebenefittobede
decisionsrequireisa'fit'betweenthelegislature'sendsandthemeanschosento
accomplishthoseendsafitthatisnotnecessarilyperfect,butreasonablethatrepresents
notnecessarilythesinglebestdispositionbutonewhosescopeisinproportiontothe
interestservedthatemploysnotnecessarilytheleastrestrictivemeansbut,aswehaveput
itintheothercontextsdiscussedabove,ameansnarrowlytailoredtoachievethedesired
objective.Withinthoseboundsweleaveittogovernmentaldecisionmakerstojudgewhat
mannerofregulationmaybestbeemployed...."Herewerequirethegovernmentgoaltobe
substantial,andthecosttobecarefullycalculated.Moreover,sincetheStatebearsthe
burdenofjustifyingitsrestrictions,itmustaffirmativelyestablishthereasonablefitwe
require."492U.S.,at480(internalquotationmarksandcitationsomitted).
13Werejectthecity'sargumentthatthelowercourts'andourconsiderationofalternative,
lessdrasticmeasuresbywhichthecitycouldeffectuateitsinterestsinsafetyandesthetics
somehowviolatesFox'sholdingthatregulationsoncommercialspeecharenotsubjectto
"leastrestrictivemeans"analysis.Torepeat,seen.12,supra,whilewehaverejectedthe
"leastrestrictivemeans"testforjudgingrestrictionsoncommercialspeech,sotoohavewe
rejectedmererationalbasisreview.Aregulationneednotbe"absolutelytheleastsevere
thatwillachievethedesiredend,"Fox,492U.S.,at480,butiftherearenumerousand
obviouslessburdensomealternativestotherestrictiononcommercialspeech,thatis
certainlyarelevantconsiderationindeterminingwhetherthe"fit"betweenendsandmeans
isreasonable.
418
rivedfromtheremovalof62newsrackswhileabout1,5002,000remaininplacewas
considered"minute"bytheDistrictCourtand"paltry"bytheCourtofAppeals.Weshare
theirevaluationofthe"fit"betweenthecity'sgoalanditsmethodofachievingit.
Inseekingreversal,thecityarguesthatitiswrongtofocusattentionontherelativelysmall
numberofnewsracksaffectedbyitsprohibition,becausethecity'scentralconcerniswith
theoverallnumberofnewsracksonitssidewalks,ratherthanwiththeunattractive
appearanceofahandfulofdispensingdevices.Itcontends,first,thatacategorical
prohibitionontheuseofnewsrackstodisseminatecommercialmessagesburdensnomore
speechthanisnecessarytofurtheritsinterestinlimitingthenumberofnewsracksand,
second,thattheprohibitionisavalid"time,place,andmanner"regulationbecauseitis
contentneutralandleavesopenamplealternativechannelsofcommunication.Weconsider
theseargumentsinturn.
III
Thecityarguesthatthereisaclosefitbetweenitsbanonnewsracksdispensing
"commercialhandbills"anditsinterestsinsafetyandestheticsbecauseeverydecreasein
thenumberofsuchdispensingdevicesnecessarilyeffectsanincreaseinsafetyandan
improvementintheattractivenessofthecityscape.Inthecity'sview,theprohibitionisthus
entirelyrelatedtoitslegitimateinterestsinsafetyandesthetics.
Weacceptthevalidityofthecity'sproposition,butconsideritaninsufficientjustificationfor
thediscriminationagainstrespondents'useofnewsracksthatarenomoreharmfulthanthe
permittednewsracks,andhaveonlyaminimalimpactontheoverallnumberofnewsracks
onthecity'ssidewalks.Themajorpremisesupportingthecity'sargumentistheproposition
thatcommercialspeechhasonlya
419
lowvalue.Basedonthatpremise,thecitycontendsthatthefactthatassertedlymore
valuablepublicationsareallowedtousenewsracksdoesnotundermineitsjudgmentthatits
estheticandsafetyinterestsarestrongerthantheinterestinallowingcommercialspeakers
tohavesimilaraccesstothereadingpublic.
Wecannotagree.Inourview,thecity'sargumentattachesmoreimportancetothe
distinctionbetweencommercialandnoncommercialspeechthanourcaseswarrantand
seriouslyunderestimatesthevalueofcommercialspeech.
Thisverycaseillustratesthedifficultyofdrawingbrightlinesthatwillclearlycabin
commercialspeechinadistinctcategory.Forrespondents'publicationsshareimportant
characteristicswiththepublicationsthatthecityclassifiesas"newspapers."Particularly,
theyare"commercialhandbills"withinthemeaningof7141Cofthecity'scodebecause
theycontainadvertising,afeaturethatapparentlyalsoplacesordinarynewspaperswithin
thesamecategory.14Separateprovisionsinthecodespecificallyauthorizethedistribution
of"newspapers"onthepublicrightofway,butthattermisnotdefined.15Presumably,
respondents'publicationsdonotqualifyasnewspapersbecauseanexaminationoftheir
contentdisclosesahigherratioofadvertisingtoothertext,suchasnewsandfeature
stories,thanisfoundintheexemptedpublications.16Indeed,Cincinnati'sCity
14Seen.2,supra.
15CincinnatiMunicipalCode8621(1992)provides:
"Permissionisherebygrantedtoanypersonorpersonslawfullyauthorizedtoengageinthe
businessofsellingnewspaperstooccupyspaceonthesidewalksofcitystreetsforselling
newspapers,eitherinthemorningorafternoon,wherepermissionhasbeenobtainedfrom
theownerortenantoftheadjoiningbuilding."
16Someordinarynewspaperstrytomaintainaratioof70%advertisingto30%editorial
content.SeegenerallyC.Fink,StrategicNewspaperManagement43(1988).
420
Managerhasdeterminedthatpublicationsthatqualifyasnewspapersandthereforecanbe
distributedbynewsrackarethosethatarepublisheddailyand/orweeklyand"primarily
presen[t]coverageof,andcommentaryon,currentevents."App.230(emphasisadded).
Theabsenceofacategoricaldefinitionofthedifferencebetween"newspapers"and
"commercialhandbills"inthecity'scodeisalsoacharacteristicofouropinionsconsidering
theconstitutionalityofregulationsofcommercialspeech.Fiftyyearsago,weconcludedthat
thedistributionofacommercialhandbillwasunprotectedbytheFirstAmendment,even
thoughhalfofitscontentconsistedofpoliticalprotest.Valentinev.Chrestensen,316U.S.
52(1942).Afewyearslater,overJusticeBlack'sdissent,weheldthatthe"commercial
feature"ofdoortodoorsolicitationofmagazinesubscriptionswasasufficientreasonfor
denyingFirstAmendmentprotectiontothatactivity.Breardv.Alexandria,341U.S.622
(1951).Subsequentopinions,however,recognizedthatimportantcommercialattributesof
variousformsofcommunicationdonotqualifytheirentitlementtoconstitutionalprotection.
Thus,inVirginiaStateBd.ofPharmacyv.VirginiaCitizensConsumerCouncil,Inc.,425U.
S.748(1976),weexplained:
"Webeginwithseveralpropositionsthatalreadyaresettledorbeyondserious
dispute.Itisclear,forexample,thatspeechdoesnotloseitsFirstAmendment
protectionbecausemoneyisspenttoprojectit,asinapaidadvertisementof
oneformoranother.Buckleyv.Valeo,424U.S.1,3559(1976)Pittsburgh
PressCo.v.HumanRelationsComm'n,413U.S.,at384NewYorkTimes
Co.v.Sullivan,376U.S.,at266.Speechlikewiseisprotectedeventhoughit
iscarriedinaformthatis'sold'forprofit,Smithv.California,361U.S.147,
150(1959)(books)JosephBurstyn,Inc.v.Wilson,343U.S.495,501(1952)
(motionpictures)Murdockv.
421
Pennsylvania,319U.S.,at111(religiousliterature),andeventhoughitmay
involveasolicitationtopurchaseorotherwisepayorcontributemoney.New
YorkTimesCo.v.Sullivan,supraNAACPv.Button,371U.S.415,429
(1963)Jamisonv.Texas,318U.S.,at417Cantwellv.Connecticut,310U.
S.296,306307(1940).
"IfthereisakindofcommercialspeechthatlacksallFirstAmendment
protection,thereforeitmustbedistinguishedbyitscontent.Yetthespeech
whosecontentdeprivesitofprotectioncannotsimplybespeechona
commercialsubject.Noonewouldcontendthatourpharmacistmaybe
preventedfrombeingheardonthesubjectofwhether,ingeneral,
pharmaceuticalpricesshouldberegulated,ortheiradvertisementforbidden.
Norcanitbedispositivethatacommercialadvertisementisnoneditorial,and
merelyreportsafact.Purelyfactualmatterofpublicinterestmayclaim
protection.Bigelowv.Virginia,421U.S.,at822Thornhillv.Alabama,310U.
S.88,102(1940)."Id.,at761762.
Wethenheldthatevenspeechthatdoesnomorethanproposeacommercialtransactionis
protectedbytheFirstAmendment.Id.,at762.17
17JUSTICEBLACKMUN,writingfortheCourtinBatesv.StateBarofArizona,433U.S.
350(1977),summarizedthereasonsforextendingFirstAmendmentprotectionto"core"
commercialspeech:
"Thelistener'sinterest[incommercialspeech]issubstantial:theconsumer'sconcernforthe
freeflowofcommercialspeechoftenmaybefarkeenerthanhisconcernforurgentpolitical
dialogue.Moreover,significantsocietalinterestsareservedbysuchspeech.Advertising,
thoughentirelycommercial,mayoftencarryinformationofimporttosignificantissuesofthe
day.SeeBigelowv.Virginia,421U.S.809(1975).Andcommercialspeechservesto
informthepublicoftheavailability,nature,andpricesofproductsandservices,andthus
performsanindispensableroleintheallocationofresourcesinafreeenterprisesystem.
SeeFTC
422
Inlateropinionswehavestatedthatspeechproposingacommercialtransactionisentitled
tolesserprotectionthanotherconstitutionallyguaranteedexpression.SeeOhralikv.Ohio
StateBarAssn.,436U.S.447,455456(1978).Wehavealsosuggestedthatsuchlesser
protectionwasappropriateforasomewhatlargercategoryofcommercialspeech"thatis,
expressionrelatedsolelytotheeconomicinterestsofthespeakeranditsaudience."Central
HudsonGas&ElectricCorp.v.PublicServiceComm'nofNewYork,447U.S.,at561.We
didnot,however,usethatdefinitionineitherBolgerv.YoungsDrugProductsCorp.,463U.
S.60(1983),orinBoardofTrusteesofStateUniversityofN.Y.
IntheBolgercaseweheldthatafederalstatuteprohibitingthemailingofunsolicited
advertisementsforcontraceptivescouldnotbeappliedtotheappellee'spromotional
materials.Mostoftheappellee'smailingsconsistedprimarilyofpriceandquantity
information,andthusfell"withinthecorenotionofcommercialspeech'speechwhichdoes
"nomorethanproposeacommercialtransaction."'"Bolger,463U.S.,at66(quoting
VirginiaPharmacy,425U.S.,at762,inturnquotingPittsburghPressCo.v.Pittsburgh
Comm'nonHumanRelations,413U.S.376,385(1973)).Relyinginpartontheappellee's
economicmotivation,theCourtalsoansweredthe"closerquestion"abouttheproper
v.Procter&GambleCo.,386U.S.568,603604(1967)(Harlan,J.,concurring).Inshort,
suchspeechservesindividualandsocietalinterestsinassuringinformedandreliable
decisionmaking."Id.,at364.
Ofcourse,wewerenotthefirsttorecognizethevalueofcommercialspeech:
"'[Advertisements]arewellcalculatedtoenlargeandenlightenthepublicmind,andare
worthyofbeingenumeratedamongthemanymethodsofawakeningandmaintainingthe
popularattention,withwhichmoremoderntimes,beyondallprecedingexample,abound.'''
D.Boorstin,TheAmericans:TheColonialExperience328,415(1958),quoting1.Thomas,
HistoryofPrintinginAmericawithaBiographyofPrinters,andanAccountofNewspapers
(2ded.1810).
423
labelforinformationalpamphletsthatwereconcededlyadvertisementsreferringtoaspecific
product,andconcludedthattheyalsowere"commercialspeech."463U.S.,at6667.Itis
noteworthythatinreachingthatconclusionwedidnotsimplyapplythebroaderdefinitionof
commercialspeechadvancedinCentralHudsonadefinitionthatobviouslywouldhave
encompassedthemailingsbutrather"examined[them]carefullytoensurethatspeech
deservingofgreaterconstitutionalprotectionisnotinadvertentlysuppressed."463U.S.,at
66.18InFox,wedescribedthecategoryevenmorenarrowly,bycharacterizingtheproposal
ofacommercialtransactionas"thetestforidentifyingcommercialspeech."492U.S.,at
473474(emphasisadded).
UndertheFoxtestitisclearthatmuchofthematerialinordinarynewspapersiscommercial
speechand,conversely,thattheeditorialcontentinrespondents'promotionalpublications
isnotwhatwehavedescribedas"core"commercialspeech.Thereisnodoubta
"commonsense"basisfordistinguishingbetweenthetwo,butunderboththecity'scodeand
ourcasesthedifferenceisamatterofdegree.19
18WhentheCourtfirstadvancedthebroaderdefinitionofcommercialspeech,asimilar
concernhadbeenexpressed.SeeCentralHudson,447
19WenotethatbecauseCincinnati'sregulatoryschemedependsonagovernmental
determinationastowhetheraparticularpublicationisa"commercialhandbill"ora
"newspaper,"itraisessomeofthesameconcernsasthenewsrackordinancestruckdown
inLakewoodv.PlainDealerPublishingCo.,486U.S.750(1988).Theordinanceatissuein
Lakewoodvestedinthemayorauthoritytograntordenyanewspaper'sapplicationfora
newsrackpermit,butcontainednoexplicitlimitonthescopeofthemayor'sdiscretion.The
Courtstruckdowntheordinance,reasoningthatalicensingschemethatvestssuch
unbridleddiscretioninagovernmentofficialmayresultineithercontentorviewpoint
censorship.Id.,at757,769770.Similarly,becausethedistinctionbetweena"newspaper"
anda"commercialhandbill"isbynomeansclearasnotedabove,thecitydeemsa
"newspaper"asapublication"primarilypresentingcoverageof,andcommentaryon,current
events,"App.230(emphasisadded)theresponsibilityfordistinguishingbetweenthetwo
carrieswith
424
Nevertheless,forthepurposeofdecidingthiscase,weassumethatallofthespeechbarred
fromCincinnati'ssidewalksiswhatwehavelabeled"core"commercialspeechandthatno
suchspeechisfoundinpublicationsthatareallowedtousenewsracks.Wenonetheless
agreewiththeCourtofAppealsthatCincinnati'sactionsinthiscaserunafouloftheFirst
Amendment.NotonlydoesCincinnati'scategoricalbanoncommercialnewsracksplacetoo
muchimportanceonthedistinctionbetweencommercialandnoncommercialspeech,butin
thiscase,thedistinctionbearsnorelationshipwhatsoevertotheparticularintereststhatthe
cityhasasserted.Itisthereforeanimpermissiblemeansofrespondingtothecity's
admittedlylegitimateinterests.Cf.Simon&Schuster,Inc.v.MembersofN.Y.StateCrime
VictimsBd.,502U.S.105,120(1991)(distinctiondrawnbySonofSamlawbetween
incomederivedfromcriminal'sdescriptionsofhiscrimeandothersources"hasnothingto
dowith"State'sinterestintransferringproceedsofcrimefromcriminalstovictims)Careyv.
Brown,447U.S.455,465(1980)(State'sinterestinresidentialprivacycannotsustain
statutepermittinglaborpicketing,butprohibitingnonlaborpicket
itthepotentialforinvidiousdiscriminationofdisfavoredsubjects.SeealsoMetromedia,Inc.
v.SanDiego,453U.S.490,536537(1981)(Brennan,J.,concurringinjudgment)
(ordinancewhichpermitsgovernmentalunittodetermine,inthefirstinstance,whether
speechiscommercialornoncommercial"entail[s]asubstantialexerciseofdiscretionbya
city'sofficial"andtherefore"presentsarealdangerofcurtailingnoncommercialspeechin
theguiseofregulatingcommercialspeech").Cf.ArkansasWriters'Project,Inc.v.Ragland,
481U.S.221,230(1987)("Inordertodeterminewhetheramagazineissubjecttosales
tax,Arkansas'enforcementauthoritiesmustnecessarilyexaminethecontentofthe
messagethatisconveyed....Suchofficialscrutinyofthecontentofpublicationsasthe
basisforimposingataxisentirelyincompatiblewiththeFirstAmendment'sguaranteeof
freedomofthepress")(internalquotationmarksandcitationomitted).
425
ingwhen"nothinginthecontentbasedlabornonlabordistinctionhasanybearing
whatsoeveronprivacy").2o
Thecityhasassertedaninterestinesthetics,butrespondentpublishers'newsracksareno
greateraneyesorethanthenewsrackspermittedtoremainonCincinnati'ssidewalks.Each
newsrack,whethercontaining"newspapers"or"commercialhandbills,"isequally
unattractive.WhiletherewassometestimonyintheDistrictCourtthatcommercial
publicationsaredistinctfromnoncommercialpublicationsintheircapacitytoproliferate,the
evidenceofsuchwasexceedinglyweak,theCourtofAppealsdiscountedit,946F.2d,at
466467,andn.3,andCincinnatidoesnotreassertthatparticularargumentinthisCourt.
Aswe
20Metromedia,Inc.v.SanDiego,453U.S.490(1981),uponwhichthecityheavilyrelies,
isnottothecontrary.Inthatcase,apluralityoftheCourtfoundasapermissiblerestriction
oncommercialspeechacityordinancethat,forthemostpart,bannedoutdoor"offsite"
advertisingbillboards,butpermitted"onsite"advertisingsignsidentifyingtheownerofthe
premisesandthegoodssoldormanufacturedonthesite.Id.,at494,503.Unlikethiscase,
whichinvolvesdiscriminationbetweencommercialandnoncommercialspeech,the"offsite
onsite"distinctioninvolveddisparatetreatmentoftwotypesofcommercialspeech.Onlythe
onsitesignsservedboththecommercialandpublicinterestinguidingpotentialvisitorsto
theirintendeddestinationsmoreover,thepluralityconcludedthata"citymaybelievethat
offsiteadvertising,withitsperiodicallychangingcontent,presentsamoreacuteproblem
thandoesonsiteadvertising,"id.,at511512.Neitherofthesebaseshasanyapplicationto
thedisparatetreatmentofnewsracksinthiscase.
THECHIEFJUSTICEiscorrectthatsevenJusticesintheMetromediacasewereofthe
viewthatSanDiegocouldcompletelybanoffsitecommercialbillboardsforreasons
unrelatedtothecontentofthosebillboards.Post,at444.ThosesevenJusticesdidnotsay,
however,thatSanDiegocoulddistinguishbetweencommercialandnoncommercialoffsite
billboardsthatcausethesameestheticandsafetyconcerns.Thatquestionwasnot
presentedinMetromedia,fortheregulationatissueinthatcasedidnotdrawadistinction
betweencommercialandnoncommercialoffsitebillboardswithafewexceptions,it
essentiallybannedalloffsitebillboards.
426
haveexplained,thecity'sprimaryconcern,asarguedtous,iswiththeaggregatenumberof
newsracksonitsstreets.Onthatscore,however,allnewsracks,regardlessofwhetherthey
containcommercialornoncommercialpublications,areequallyatfault.Infact,the
newspapersarearguablythegreaterculpritbecauseoftheirsuperiornumber.
Cincinnatihasnotassertedaninterestinpreventingcommercialharmsbyregulatingthe
informationdistributedbyrespondentpublishers'newsracks,whichis,ofcourse,thetypical
reasonwhycommercialspeechcanbesubjecttogreatergovernmentalregulationthan
noncommercialspeech.See,e.g.,Bolger,463U.S.,at81(STEVENS,J.,concurringin
judgment)("[T]hecommercialaspectsofamessagemayprovideajustificationfor
regulationthatisnotpresentwhenthecommunicationhasnocommercialcharacter")
Ohralikv.OhioStateBarAssn.,436U.S.,at455456(commercialspeech,unlikeother
varietiesofspeech,"occursinanareatraditionallysubjecttogovernmentregulation").21
Acloserexaminationofoneofthecaseswehavementioned,Bolgerv.YoungsDrug
Products,demonstratesthefallacyofthecity'sargumentthatareasonablefitisestablished
bythemerefactthattheentireburdenimposedoncommercialspeechbyitsnewsrack
policymayinsomesmallwaylimitthetotalnumberofnewsracksonCincinnati'ssidewalks.
Here,thecitycontendsthatsafetyconcernsandvisualblightmaybeaddressedbya
prohibitionthatdistin
21Moreover,theprincipalreasonfordrawingadistinctionbetweencommercialand
noncommercialspeechhaslittle,ifany,applicationtoaregulationoftheirdistribution
practices.AsweexplainedinBolger:"Advertisersshouldnotbepermittedtoimmunizefalse
ormisleadingproductinformationfromgovernmentregulationsimplybyincluding
referencestopublicissues."463U.S.,at68.Theinterestinpreventingcommercialharms
justifiesmoreintensiveregulationofcommercialspeechthannoncommercialspeecheven
whentheyareintermingledinthesamepublications.Ontheotherhand,theinterestin
protectingthefreeflowofinformationandideasisstillpresentwhensuchexpressionis
foundinacommercialcontext.
427
guishesbetweencommercialandnoncommercialpublicationsthatareequallyresponsible
forthoseproblems.InBolger,however,inrejectingtheGovernment'srelianceonitsinterest
inprotectingthepublicfrom"offensive"speech,"[we]specificallydeclinedtorecognizea
distinctionbetweencommercialandnoncommercialspeechthatwouldrenderthisinteresta
sufficientjustificationforaprohibitionofcommercialspeech."463U.S.,at7172(citing
Careyv.PopulationServicesInternational,431U.S.678,701,n.28(1977)).Moreover,the
factthattheregulation"provide[d]onlythemostlimitedincrementalsupportfortheinterest
asserted,"463U.S.,at73thatitachievedonlya"marginaldegreeofprotection,"ibid.,for
thatinterestsupportedourholdingthattheprohibitionwasinvalid.Finally,inBolger,asin
thiscase,theburdenoncommercialspeechwasimposedbydenyingthespeakeraccessto
onemethodofdistributiontheretheUnitedStatesmails,andheretheplacementof
newsracksonpublicpropertywithoutinterferingwithalternativemeansofaccesstothe
audience.AsthenJusTIcEREHNQUISTexplainedinhisseparateopinion,thatfactdidnot
minimizethesignificanceoftheburden:
"[T]hePostalServicearguesthatYoungscancommunicatewiththepublic
otherwisethanthroughthemail.[Thisargumentfalls]wideofthemark.A
prohibitionontheuseofthemailsisasignificantrestrictionofFirst
Amendmentrights.Wehavenotedthat'''[t]heUnitedStatesmaygiveupthe
PostOfficewhenitseesfit,butwhileitcarriesitontheuseofthemailsisas
muchapartoffreespeechastherighttouseourtongues.'"Blountv.Rizzi,
400U.S.,at416,quotingMilwaukeeSocialDemocraticPublishingCo.v.
Burleson,255U.S.407,437(1921)(Holmes,J.,dissenting)."Id.,at7980
(footnoteomitted).
Inasimilarvein,evenifweassume,arguendo,thatthecitymightentirelyprohibittheuseof
newsracksonpublic
428
property,aslongasthisavenueofcommunicationremainsopen,thesedevicescontinueto
playasignificantroleinthedisseminationofprotectedspeech.
Intheabsenceofsomebasisfordistinguishingbetween"newspapers"and"commercial
handbills"thatisrelevanttoaninterestassertedbythecity,weareunwillingtorecognize
Cincinnati'sbareassertionthatthe"lowvalue"ofcommercialspeechisasufficient
justificationforitsselectiveandcategoricalbanonnewsracksdispensing"commercial
handbills."Ourholding,however,isnarrow.Asshouldbeclearfromtheabovediscussion,
wedonotreachthequestionwhether,givencertainfactsandundercertaincircumstances,
acommunitymightbeabletojustifydifferentialtreatmentofcommercialandnoncommercial
newsracks.WesimplyholdthatonthisrecordCincinnatihasfailedtomakesucha
showing.BecausethedistinctionCincinnatihasdrawnhasabsolutelynobearingonthe
interestsithasasserted,wehavenodifficultyconcluding,asdidthetwocourtsbelow,that
thecityhasnotestablishedthe"fit"betweenitsgoalsanditschosenmeansthatisrequired
byouropinioninFox.Itremainstoconsiderthecity'sargumentthatitsprohibitionisa
permissibletime,place,andmannerregulation.
IV
TheCourthasheldthatgovernmentmayimposereasonablerestrictionsonthetime,place,
ormannerofengaginginprotectedspeechprovidedthattheyareadequatelyjustified
"'withoutreferencetothecontentoftheregulatedspeech.'"Wardv.RockAgainstRacism,
491U.S.781,791(1989),quotingClarkv.CommunityforCreativeNonViolence,468U.S.
288,293(1984).Thus,aprohibitionagainsttheuseofsoundtrucksemitting"loudand
raucous"noiseinresidentialneighborhoodsispermissibleifitappliesequallytomusic,
politicalspeech,andadvertising.Seegen
429
erallyKovacsv.Cooper,336U.S.77(1949).Thecitycontendsthatitsregulationof
newsracksqualifiesassucharestrictionbecausetheinterestsinsafetyandestheticsthatit
servesareentirelyunrelatedtothecontentofrespondents'publications.Thus,the
argumentgoes,thejustificationfortheregulationiscontentneutral.
Theargumentisunpersuasivebecausetheverybasisfortheregulationisthedifferencein
contentbetweenordinarynewspapersandcommercialspeech.True,thereisnoevidence
thatthecityhasactedwithanimustowardtheideascontainedwithinrespondents'
publications,butjustlastTermweexpresslyrejectedtheargumentthat"discriminatory...
treatmentissuspectundertheFirstAmendmentonlywhenthelegislatureintendsto
suppresscertainideas."Simon&Schuster,Inc.v.MembersofN.Y.StateCrimeVictims
Bd.,502U.S.,at117.Regardlessofthemensreaofthecity,ithasenactedasweeping
banontheuseofnewsracksthatdistribute"commercialhandbills,"butnot"newspapers."
Underthecity'snewsrackpolicy,whetheranyparticularnewsrackfallswithinthebanis
determinedbythecontentofthepublicationrestinginsidethatnewsrack.Thus,byany
commonsenseunderstandingoftheterm,thebaninthiscaseis"contentbased."
Norarewepersuadedthatourstatementsthatthetestforwhetheraregulationiscontent
basedturnsonthe"justification"fortheregulation,see,e.g.,Ward,491U.S.,at791
Clark,468U.S.,at293,compeladifferentconclusion.Weagreewiththecitythatitsdesire
tolimitthetotalnumberofnewsracksis"justified"byitsinterestsinsafetyandesthetics.
Thecityhasnot,however,limitedthenumberofnewsracksithaslimited(tozero)the
numberofnewsracksdistributingcommercialpublications.Aswehaveexplained,thereis
nojustificationforthatparticularregulationotherthanthecity'snakedassertionthat
commercialspeechhas"lowvalue."Itistheabsenceofaneu
430
traljustificationforitsselectivebanonnewsracksthatpreventsthecityfromdefendingits
newsrackpolicyascontentneutral.
Bythesamereasoning,thecity'sheavyrelianceonRentonv.PlaytimeTheatres,Inc.,475
U.S.41(1986),ismisplaced.InRenton,acityordinanceimposedparticularzoning
regulationsonmovietheatersshowingadultfilms.TheCourtrecognizedthattheordinance
didnotfallneatlyintothe"contentbased"or"contentneutral"categoryinthat"the
ordinancetreatstheatersthatspecializeinadultfilmsdifferentlyfromotherkindsof
theaters."Id.,at47.Weupheldtheregulation,however,largelybecauseitwasjustifiednot
byaninterestinsuppressingadultfilms,butbythecity'sconcernforthe"secondaryeffects"
ofsuchtheatersonthesurroundingneighborhoods.Id.,at4749.Incontrasttothespeech
atissueinRenton,therearenosecondaryeffectsattributabletorespondentpublishers'
newsracksthatdistinguishthemfromthenewsracksCincinnatipermitstoremainonits
sidewalks.
Insum,thecity'snewsrackpolicyisneithercontentneutralnor,asdemonstratedinPartIII,
supra,"narrowlytailored."Thus,regardlessofwhetherornotitleavesopenample
alternativechannelsofcommunication,itcannotbejustifiedasalegitimatetime,place,or
mannerrestrictiononprotectedspeech.
Cincinnatihasenactedasweepingbanthatbarsfromitssidewalksawholeclassof
constitutionallyprotectedspeech.AsdidtheDistrictCourtandtheCourtofAppeals,we
concludethatCincinnatihasfailedtojustifythatpolicy.Theregulationisnotapermissible
regulationofcommercialspeech,foronthisrecorditisclearthattheintereststhat
Cincinnatihasassertedareunrelatedtoanydistinctionbetween"commercialhandbills"and
"newspapers."Moreover,becausethebanispredicatedonthecontentofthepublications
distributedbythesubjectnewsracks,itisnotavalidtime,place,ormannerrestrictionon
protectedspeech.
431
Forthesereasons,Cincinnati'scategoricalbanonthedistribution,vianewsrack,of
"commercialhandbills"cannotbesquaredwiththedictatesoftheFirstAmendment.
ThejudgmentoftheCourtofAppealsis
Affirmed.
JUSTICEBLACKMUN,concurring.
IagreethatCincinnati'sbanoncommercialnewsrackscannotwithstandscrutinyunder
CentralHudsonGas&ElectricCorp.v.PublicServoComm'nofN.Y.,447U.S.557
(1980),andBoardofTrusteesofStateUniversityofN.Y.v.Fox,492U.S.469(1989),and
IthereforejointheCourt'sopinion.IwriteseparatelybecauseIcontinuetobelievethatthe
analysissetforthinCentralHudsonandrefinedinFoxaffordsinsufficientprotectionfor
truthful,noncoercivecommercialspeechconcerninglawfulactivities.InCentralHudson,I
expressedtheviewthat"intermediatescrutinyisappropriateforarestraintoncommercial
speechdesignedtoprotectconsumersfrommisleadingorcoercivespeech,oraregulation
relatedtothetime,place,ormannerofcommercialspeech,"butnotforaregulationthat
suppressestruthfulcommercialspeechtoservesomeothergovernmentpurpose.447U.
S.,at573(opinionconcurringinjudgment).Thepresentcasedemonstratesthatthereisno
reasontotreattruthfulcommercialspeechasaclassthatisless"valuable"than
noncommercialspeech.Respondents'publications,whichrespectivelyadvertisethe
availabilityofresidentialpropertiesandeducationalopportunities,areunquestionably
"valuable"tothosewhochoosetoreadthem,andCincinnati'sbanoncommercial
newsracksshouldbesubjecttothesamescrutinywewouldapplytoaregulationburdening
noncommercialspeech.
InVirginiaStateBd.ofPharmacyv.VirginiaCitizensConsumerCouncil,Inc.,425U.S.748
(1976),thisCourtheldthatcommercialspeech"whichdoes'nomorethanproposea
commercialtransaction'"isprotectedbytheFirstAmendment,id.,at762,quotingPittsburgh
PressCo.v.Pittsburgh

Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/25/2016 Cincinnativ.DiscoveryNetwork,Inc.::507U.S.410(1993)::JustiaU.S.

Justia U.S.Law U.S.CaseLaw U.S.SupremeCourt Volume507

You might also like