Garlick, 65 Misc.2d 538, 318 N.Y.S.2d 370, 374 (Sup.Ct.1971) (publication of false ad actionable only if published maliciously, with intent to harm, or in reckless disregard of the ad's consequences) but see South Carolina State Ports Authority v. For their part, the Amici Curiae arguing on SOF's behalf contend that the district court erred in applying a negligence standard to a case that arguably involves commercial speech. See, e.g., Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. SOF asserts primarily that this case involves protected commercial speech it argues further that the district court's broad definition of "context" and Eimann's emphasis on the mercenary focus of SOF's ads and articles amounted to impermissible content distinctions in violation of first amendment principles. Given the pervasiveness of advertising in our society and the important role it plays, we decline to impose on publishers the obligation to reject all ambiguous advertisements for products or services that might pose a threat of harm. 530, 536 (S.D.Ohio 1987) (applying Ohio law) Patterson v.
To take a more extreme example, courts have almost uniformly rejected efforts to hold handgun manufacturers liable under negligence or strict liability theories to gunshot victims injured during crimes, despite the real possibility that such products can be used for criminal purposes. But everyday activities, such as driving on high-speed, closed access roadways, also carry definite risks that we as a society choose to accept in return for the activity's usefulness and convenience. Hearn's ad presents a risk of serious harm. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980) Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. The Supreme Court's subsequent emphasis on the states' interest in regulating commercial speech neither erases this first amendment protection nor alters the fact that advertising is a part of daily life. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S.
may be as keen, if not keener by far, than his interest in the day's most urgent political debate." Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. As the Court has noted, "he particular consumer's interest in the free flow of commercial information. While we do not reach SOF's first amendment arguments, the Supreme Court's recognition of limited first amendment protection for commercial speech nonetheless highlights the important role of such communication for purposes of risk-benefit analysis.
0 kommentar(er)
