Valentine v. Chrestensen

SCOTUS-Infobox
Litigants=Valentine v. Chrestensen
ArgueDate=March 31
ArgueYear=1942
DecideDate=April 13
DecideYear=1942
FullName=Valentine, Police Commissioner of the City of New York v.Chrestensen
USVol=316
USPage=52
Citation=
Prior=
Subsequent=
Holding=Commercial speech is not protected under the First Amendment.
SCOTUS=1941-1942
Majority=Roberts
JoinMajority=
Concurrence=
JoinConcurrence=
Concurrence2=
JoinConcurrence2=
Concurrence/Dissent=
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
Dissent=
JoinDissent=
Dissent2=
JoinDissent2=
LawsApplied=

"Valentine v. Chrestensen", 316 U.S. 52 (1942), [http://www.xs4all.nl/~cboumans/studie/Valentine_vs_Chrestensen.doc] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that commercial speech is not protected under the First Amendment

Introduction

The case started when the respondent, F.J. Chrestensen violated a New York City municipal ordinance (§318 of the Sanitary Code) which prohibited distributing printed handbills in the streets bearing "commercial advertising matter." Chrestensen was using the handbills to promote his exhibit of a World War I submarine that was moored at a State pier in the East River and open for the public if they paid the stated admission fee.

Chrestensen was told by the Police Commissioner of New York City, Lewis J. Valentine, that he could not distribute the handbills bearing the commercial or business advertising matter. Valentine also advised Chrestensen that he could only distribute handbills solely devoted to "information or a public protest." [http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/advertising/overview.aspx]

Chrestensen remade his handbill, by removing the admission fee on the front advertisement and on the reverse side placing a protest against the city's refusal.

Facts of the case

Prior history

Decision of the Court

The court decided that "purely commercial advertising" is not protected under the first amendment. The court explained its decision as to why advertising did not afford the same protection as "political speech" under the first amendment because:a) advertising is not as important as political speechb) it is harder to chill advertising, which has a strong profit motivec) it's easier to verify ad claims than political claims, and therefore we have no need to tolerate false advertising

Concurring opinions

Dissenting opinions

Effects of the decision

Critical response

Subsequent history

This case was later overturned by Va. State Board Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council (1976)

References

* Justia's US Supreme Court Center [http://supreme.justia.com/us/316/52/case.html]

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 316

External links