In 1995,a popular chewing gum manufacturer decided to market a new line of gum in the state of New York,claiming use of the 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) Though advertising used to be considered protected under the First Amendment,a 1994 Supreme Court case removed this protection.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q38: Plessy v.Ferguson ruled that the federal government
A)had
Q55: As forbidden by the U.S.Constitution,trying a person
Q55: Why is commercial speech not entitled to
Q56: The Fifth Amendment to the U.S.Constitution says,among
Q57: Speech accompanied by activities such as picketing,distributing
Q60: The notion that no person shall "be
Q63: Which of the following is correct regarding
Q64: In which year was the Nineteenth Amendment
Q79: The requirement that the judicial system must
Q92: The contemporary conception of a constitutional right
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