Summary of the Case
Representing prescription drug customers, Virginia Citizens Consumer Council opposed a policy enacted by Virginia state that made it unlawful for the approved pharmacists to promote their drug costs. On plea from an opposing verdict by a three-judge District Court board, USA Supreme Court gave Virginia State Board of Pharmacy appraisal. The question that emerged from this law was whether the prohibition on marketing prescription drug costs by approved pharmacists is a defilement of commercial speech stated under the First Amendment. At last, in a 7 to 1 opinion, The Supreme Court concluded that the First Amendment safeguards wanting speakers plus eager listeners equally (“Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc,” 1976).
Moreover, the Court stated that in instances of commercial speech, such as price marketing, freedom of speech defenses pertain to just as they work in noncommercial speeches. Finally, the Court concluded that even though the Virginia State Board of Pharmacy has authorized needs to uphold competence among its members, it might not do so at the cost of public awareness concerning lawful competitive costing terms.
How the Case Helped Shape First Amendment Protection for Advertisement
The case helped extend First Amendment’s protection to commercial speech. Commercial speech is currently under the First Amendment, nonetheless, it does not get as much free speech security as noncommercial speech, for instance, political speeches. Commercial speech, as Supreme Court affirmed in Valentine v. Chrestensen in 1942, had in the past been not considered as safeguarded under the First Amendment (Espino, 2022).
The above notion implies that before 1976, commercial speech was yet to be safeguarded under the First Amendment. Through Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Justice Blackmun wrote that the First Amendment not solely entailed the rights of speakers to engage others, but it also safeguarded the rights of the consumers to gain awareness concerning the drug prices (Queen, 2020). Accordingly, advertising gives companies the right to market their commodities, as their customers also have the right to know their deals. Due to this case, commercial speech is protected from governmental meddling via the First Amendment. Companies making commodities connected with public health have the constitutional right to advertise their products to their customers.
How the Case Influenced how Professionals Create Messages
In this case, the Court held that a speech never loses its protection just because money is one of the aspects involved. Nonetheless, companies still had to maintain professionalism when establishing these messages. Blackmun also stated that just because this form of speech is safeguarded from the government, that does not imply that it is immune from government rule (Parasites, 2019). This form of speech is permitted to less defense that political speeches can be controlled if they have misleading, false, or information that encourages people to engage in unlawful acts.
Unlike political speech, which might be challenging to prove, the Court supposed commercial speech to have more objectivity and, therefore, subject to finding out if its content is truthful (Parasites, 2019). Accordingly, professionals who establish digital messages must ensure that their information is genuine and not misleading. For instance, if pharmaceutical companies market their prices to a specific value, nevertheless, they shift their costs while selling, that would not be safeguarded under the First Amendment. That means commercial speech protection under the First Amendment allows companies to give credible and accurate information to their customers when advertising. These companies must refrain from taking advantage of the consumers’ unawareness and displaying inaccurate figures or information.
References
Espino, G. (2022). Listening to competing speakers: Evolving interest group sponsorship of commercial speech cases before the American Supreme Court. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 11, 545–568.
Parasidis, E. (2019). Reclaiming the First Amendment. American Journal of Public Health, 109(3), 352.
Queen, B. (2020). The First Amendment v. reproductive rights: Crisis pregnancy centers, commercial speech, and marketplaces of misinformation. First Amendment Studies, 54(1), 71–92.
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. (1976). Oyez. Web.