지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
In 1976, the United States Supreme Court reversed its longstanding conclusion that the Constitution imposes no restraint on government regulation of purely commercial advertising. The announcement spawned what has since become known as commercial speech doctrine, a notoriously unstable and contentious domain of First Amendment jurisprudence. No other realm of First Amendment law has proved as divisive. Some adamantly support the Court's original position depriving commercial speech of constitutional protection, whereas others are unable to discern any philosophical or historical basis for asserting that ‘commercial speech’ is of lower value than ‘noncommercial speech.’ Although Commercial speech doctrine is now almost a quarter of a century old, yet it has never systematically queried its own justifications and implications
So, our purpose in this Article is to demonstrate the major outlines of contemporary commercial speech doctrine. Specificly, We believe it can be explained by reference to a roughly Meiklejohnian perspective, so that the Central Hudson test which has became a general test for determining the constitutionality of regulations of commercial speech can in fact be subject to principled revision. This revision would require the test both to articulate which government purposes are acceptable and which are not, and to specify which impacts on commercial speech are acceptable and which are not. It would also require that the misleading requirement be employed only in a restricted way that refers to the structural relationship between consumers and speakers.
Such revision would not, however, precipitate a total reconstruction of the contemporary doctrinal framework of commercial speech. It would preserve the distinction between commercial speech and public discourse, and it would explain why the latter has always received different and greater constitutional protections than the former. If these advantages are attractive to a majority of the Court, commercial speech doctrine, as we now know it, may just survive its present vicissitudes.
So, our purpose in this Article is to demonstrate the major outlines of contemporary commercial speech doctrine. Specificly, We believe it can be explained by reference to a roughly Meiklejohnian perspective, so that the Central Hudson test which has became a general test for determining the constitutionality of regulations of commercial speech can in fact be subject to principled revision. This revision would require the test both to articulate which government purposes are acceptable and which are not, and to specify which impacts on commercial speech are acceptable and which are not. It would also require that the misleading requirement be employed only in a restricted way that refers to the structural relationship between consumers and speakers.
Such revision would not, however, precipitate a total reconstruction of the contemporary doctrinal framework of commercial speech. It would preserve the distinction between commercial speech and public discourse, and it would explain why the latter has always received different and greater constitutional protections than the former. If these advantages are attractive to a majority of the Court, commercial speech doctrine, as we now know it, may just survive its present vicissitudes.
목차
Ⅰ. 序論
Ⅱ. ‘商業的 言論’의 槪念
Ⅲ. 商業的 言論에 대한 憲法的 保護
Ⅳ. 結論
參考文獻
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (19)
참고문헌 신청
[학술지(정기간행물)] - / 1996 / "Essay, Remembering Melville Nimmer: Some Cautionary Notes on Commercial Speech" 43 UCLA L. Rev. 1635 : 43 ~
[학술지(정기간행물)] - / 1999 / Akhil Reed"Intratextualism
[학술지(정기간행물)] - / 1976 / A Problem in the Theory of Freedom : 62 ~
[학술지(정기간행물)] - / 1978 / An Inquiry into the Substance and Limits of Principle
[학술지(정기간행물)] - / 1996. / Liberalism Divided: Freedom of Speech and the Many Uses of State Power
[학술지(정기간행물)] - / 1999 / Akhil Reed"Intratextualism
[학술지(정기간행물)] - / 1976 / A Problem in the Theory of Freedom : 62 ~
[학술지(정기간행물)] - / 1978 / An Inquiry into the Substance and Limits of Principle
[학술지(정기간행물)] - / 1996. / Liberalism Divided: Freedom of Speech and the Many Uses of State Power
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
미국에서의 인터넷 상업광고에 대한 헌법적 규제
동북아법연구
2012 .01
-
상업적 광고에 관한 센트럴 허드슨기준에 대한 비판적 분석과 대안
홍익법학
2012 .01
-
Opening Speech
한국방송학회 세미나 및 보고서
2007 .10
-
Opening Speech
전남대학교 글로벌디아스포라연구소 국제학술회의
2014 .02
-
Speech of Welcome
법학논총
1998 .01
-
Welcoming Speech
저스티스
1973 .12
-
Welcoming Speech
전남대학교 글로벌디아스포라연구소 국제학술회의
2007 .05
-
美國憲法과 商業的 表現의 自由
미국헌법연구
2006 .09
-
클리어스피치의 이해와 임상적 적용을 위한 제언
Audiology and Speech Research
2017 .01
-
대구지역 일반인들의 언어치료 이미지 인식 조사 연구
언어치료연구
2018 .04
-
한국어 기반 클리어스피치와 일반 발화에 따른 어음역동범위 비교
Audiology and Speech Research
2018 .01
-
화법 교육 내용 선정을 위한 담화 구성 연구 - 학습자 자기 평가를 바탕으로 -
문법교육
2008 .01
-
International Speech Coding Standards
Telecommunications Review
2003 .01
-
한국어 화행의 전략 연구－관용 문장을 중심으로－
동아시아문화연구
2019 .01
-
정보 제공 스피치의 은유 사용 양상 연구 - 강연 담화를 중심으로 -
화법연구
2019 .01
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
팟캐스트의 규제 시도에 대한 시론적 고찰
이병섭
지역과 커뮤니케이션
2012
.11
포털 뉴스와 인터넷신문 편집자의 전문가 역할 인식과 게이트키핑 차이 분석
유봉석
,
정일권
사이버커뮤니케이션학보
2012
.12
대기업 광고주가 자사 신문기사에 미치는 영향에 대한 기자 인식 연구 : 종합일간지 경제·산업부 기자들을 중심으로
배정근
한국언론학보
2012
.10
인터넷 포털에 대한 법적 규제방안의 연구
허진성
언론과법
2009
.12
뉴스생산의 창의성 현실화에 관한 탐색적 고찰을 위한 기자인식 연구
김사승
미디어 경제와 문화
2012
.08
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-362-016109426