In 1995,a popular chewing gum manufacturer decided to market a new line of gum in the state of New York,claiming use of their product would whiten one's teeth.However,scientific studies found the opposite to be true,and eventually the government forced the company to remove the claim from the product's packaging.Why was the chewing gum manufacturer's speech not protected under the First Amendment?
A) An advertising claim does not have full protection under the First Amendment because it is not political speech.
B) The government had a compelling interest to protect the health of consumers.
C) Only individuals possess First Amendment rights,not businesses.
D) It was a state issue,and the speech was not protected under the First Amendment of the U.S.Constitution.
E) While advertising used to be considered protected under the First Amendment,a 1994 Supreme Court case removed this protection.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q47: In a recent gubernatorial campaign,there was a
Q51: The 2008 Supreme Court decision in District
Q55: Why is commercial speech not entitled to
Q57: A statute restricting expressive or symbolic speech
Q57: Even though symbolic speech is entitled to
Q60: Which Supreme Court case ruled that corporate
Q70: Among other things, the provision that no
Q75: "The right of the people to keep
Q79: The requirement that the judicial system must
Q80: When evidence obtained from an illegal search
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents