Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
73. Is the court likely to find the statute constitutional?
On the basis of scientific studies showing a causal relationship between the consumption of «red meat» (principally beef) and certain forms of cancer, a federal statute prohibits all commercial advertising of red meat products. The statute does not, however, restrict the sale of red meat products. Producers of red meat have challenged the statute as a violation of their free speech rights protected by the First Amendment.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is correct. The commercial speech at issue fails the test that applies to the restriction of commercial speech that is not misleading, fraudulent, or unlawful. First, it is true that the government has a substantial interest in preventing certain cancers. Second, it may be argued that preventing the advertising of red meat directly advances the interest in causing cancer by reducing the number of people who buy it based on advertising. However, prohibiting all commercial advertising for red meat products is not narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
A is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The government has a substantial interest in preventing cancer. However, as stated above, the statute is not narrowly tailored to serve that interest by prohibiting all advertising of red meat, and the statute is therefore unconstitutional.
C is incorrect. Some commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment, although it is limited. Protected commercial speech includes advertising that it is not illegal, misleading, or fraudulent.
D is incorrect. Although the governmental interest in preventing cancer is legitimate because it is protecting public health, it is nevertheless unconstitutional because it is more extensive than necessary to serve that government interest.