Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
Six corporations that operated radio stations challenged the constitutionality of a tobacco control law that banned cigarette advertising on all federally regulated electronic communications media. Although the corporations argued that the ability to disseminate information is integral to the right to freedom of speech, the Court refused to extend full First Amendment protections to advertisements, holding that the advertising ban did not implicate the corporations' right to speak but affected only their monetary interests. The Court further held that the ban did not violate due process because rational bases existed for regulating advertising in broadcast media and in print media differently. The dissent stated that the ban violated speech protections because it restricted the flow of truthful information to the public.