Kick it Up a Notch: First Amendment Protection for Commercial Speech, in Symposium: Nike V. Kasky and the Modern Commercial Speech Doctrine
Case Western Reserve Law Review, Vol. 54, p. 1205, Summer 2004
- 2,999Usage
- 1Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Paper Description
In Kasky v. Nike, the California Supreme Court held that Nike's image-building public relations campaign in response to allegations of overseas sweatshop labor was not protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, but instead was commercial speech susceptible to legal challenge under California's Unfair Competition Law. This Article argues in favor of full First Amendment protection for corporate speech on two fundamental grounds. First, corporations and other business interests play a vital role in the American political economy, thus imbuing corporate speech with inherent value in our democratic society. Rather than treating such speech as a hostile intruder in public debate, it should be embraced as presenting a point of view that may otherwise remain unexpressed. Second, the line between commercial and noncommercial speech is becoming indistinguishable with new technologies and innovative marketing strategies introducing corporate profit-motive into otherwise fully protected speech. The current commercial speech doctrine cannot predictably resolve disputes resulting from these new modes of expression.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know