Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:41:50.016Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Value of Commercial Speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2003

Colin R. Munro
Colin R. Munro*
Affiliation:
The University of Edinburgh
Get access

Extract

Recent decisions in the courts have encouraged discussion of the extent to which the common law does or should place a high or higher value on political expression. Some scholars argue for a more explicit recognition of the high value of political speech, and would seek, for example, to “constitutionalise” defamation laws. Others have adopted a more sceptical attitude to the desirability of importing American approaches to freedom of expression generally or to the privileging of political speech as a category.

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 62 , Issue 1 , 01 March 2003 , pp. 134 - 158
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, for example, Derbyshire C.C. v. Times Newspapers [1993] A.C. 534; Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [2001] 2 A.C. 127; R. (on the application of ProLife Alliance) v. BBC [2002] EWCA Civ 297, [2002] 2 All E.R. 756.

2 The terms “speech” and “expression” may be distinguished for some purposes, but are here used interchangeably unless the context implies otherwise.

3 See, for example, Loveland, I.D., Political Libels: A Comparative Study (Oxford 2000)Google Scholar.

4 Sedley, S., “The First Amendment: A Case for Import Controls”, in Loveland, I.D. (ed.), Importing the First Amendment (Oxford 1998)Google Scholar.

5 Hare, I., “Is the Privileged Position of Political Expression Justified?”, in Beatson, J. and Cripps, Y. (eds.), Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Informatton (Oxford 2000)Google Scholar.

6 Gardner, J., “Freedom of Expression”, in McCrudden, C. and Chambers, G. (eds.), Individual Rights and the Law in Britain (Oxford 1994)Google Scholar.

7 Forsyth, C., “The Protection of Political Discourse: Pragmatism or Incoherence?”, in Beatson, J. and Cripps, Y. (eds.), Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Information (Oxford 2000), at p. 90Google Scholar.

8 Harris, D.J., O’Boyle, M. and Warbrick, C., Law of the European (Convention on Human Rights (London 1995), p. 402Google Scholar.

9 An honourable exception is the paper by Quinn, G. “Extending the Coverage of Freedom of Expression to Commercial Speech: A Comparative Perspective”, in Heffernan, L. (ed.), Human Rights: A European Perspective (Dublin 1994)Google Scholar. See also A. Lester and D. Pannick, “Advertising and Freedom of Expression in Europe” [1985] P.L. 349; G. Marshall, “Taking Rights for an Override: Free Speech and Commercial Expression” [1989] P.L. 4.

10 315 U.S. 568 (1942).

11 316 U.S. 52 (1942).

12 Breard v. Alexandria 341 U.S. 622 (1951).

13 Pittsburgh v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations 413 U.S. 376 (1973).

14 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

15 421 U.S. 809 (1975).

16 425 U.S. 748 (1976).

17 447 U.S. 557 (1980).

18 Ibid., at pp. 565-566.

19 Board of Trustees of State University of New York (SUNY) V. Fox 492 U.S. 469, 479 (1989).

20 Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association 436 U.S. 447, 456 (1978).

21 Posadas De Puerto Pico Associates V. Tourism Company of Puerto Pico 478 U.S. 328 (1986).

22 44 Liquormart Inc. v. Rhode Island 517 U.S. 484 (1996); Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, A.G. of Massachusetts 533 U.S. 525 (2001).

23 R.J.R. Macdonald v. Attorney-General of Canada [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199.

24 27 Cal. 4th 939 (2002)

25 Müller v. Switzerland (1988) 13 E.H.R.R 212, para. 27.

26 See generally Harris, D.J., O’Boyle, M. and Warbrick, C., Law of the European Convertion on Human Rights (London 1995)Google Scholar, ch. 11; Jacobs, F.G. and White, R.C.A., The European Convention on Human Rights, 2nd edn. (Oxford 1996)Google Scholar, ch. 12; van Dijk, P. and van Hoof, G., Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, 3rd edn. (The Hague 1998)Google Scholar, ch. 7.10; Nicol, A., Millar, G. and Sharland, A., Media Law and Human Rights (London 2001)Google Scholar, ch. 12.

27 App. No. 7805/77, 16 D.R. 68 (1979).

28 (19 85) 7 E.H.R.R. 383.

29 Casado Coca v. Spain (1994) 18 E.H.R.R. 1; Lindner v. Germany (App. No. 32813/96, 9 March 1999). For an attempt to explain the Court's disposition to subsidiary in Article 10 cases, see P. Mahoney, “Universality versus Subsidiary in Free Speech Cases” [1997] E.H.R.L.R. 364.

30 Colman v. United Kingdom (1993) 18 E.H.R.R. 119. More recently, in Stambuk v. Germany (App. No. 37928/97), the Court found a violation of Article 10 in a professional disciplinary tribunal's punishment of an ophthalmologist who had been interviewed by a newspaper about his laser treatment practice.

31 (1990) 12 E.H.R.R. 161.

32 (1994) 19 E.H.R.R. 64.

33 (1998) 28 E.H.R.R. 534.

34 (2002) 34 E.H.R.R. 4.

35 (1992) 15 E.H.R.R. 244.

36 Müller v. Switzerland (1988) 13 E.H.R.R. 212, para. 27; Thorgeirson v. Iceland (1992) 14 E.H.R.R. 843, para. 64.

37 Harris, D.J., O’Boyle, M. and Warbrick, C., Law of the European Convertion on Human Rights (London 1995), p. 396Google Scholar.

38 Handyside v. United Kingdom (1976) 1 E.H.R.R. 737; Sunday Times v. United Kingdom (1979) 2 E.H.R.R. 245.

39 As implied by Germany v. European Parliament and European Union Council [2000] 3 C.M.L.R. 1175. The European Court of Justice annulled the EC's Tobacco Advertising Directive 98/43 because the Community did not have powers to make it under the purported bases. Advocate-General Fennelly considered the alternative challenge of inconsistency with the ECHR and regarded the ban as compatible with Article 10, except for provisions which prohibited cross-branding. See E. Barendt, “Tobacco Advertising: The Last Puff?” [2002] P.L. 22.

40 Public Order Act 1986, ss. 17-23.

41 Contempt of Court Act 1981, ss. 1-7.

42 Whitehouse v. Lemon [1979] A.C. 617.

43 See A. Dickey, “Prosecutions under the Race Relation Act 1965, s. 6” [1968] Crim.L.R. 480; W.J. Wolffe, “Values in Conflict: Incitement to Racial Hatred and the Public Order Act 1986” [1987] P.L. 85.

44 As, for example, in A-G v. BBC (1996) The Times, 26 July or Muir v. BBC 1996 S.C.C.R. 584.

45 As, for example, in Atkins v. London Weekend Television Ltd. 1978 S.L.T. 76 or A-G v. TVS Television Ltd. (1989) The Times, 7 July.

46 [1931] A.C. 333.

47 Trade Descriptions Act 1968. See Bragg, R., Trade Descriptions (Oxford 1991)Google Scholar.

48 Consumer Protection Act 1987, Part III.

49 Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988, S.I. 1988/915; Control of Misleading Advertisements (Amendment) Regulations 2000, S.I. 2000/914.

50 Firearms Act 1968, s. 3.

51 Sex Discrimination Act 1975, s. 38.

52 See generally Crown, G., Advertising Law and Regulation (London 1998)Google Scholar. A recent example is found in the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002.

53 Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996. See Reville, N., Broadcasting Law and Practice (London 1997)Google Scholar; Barendt, E. and Hitchens, L., Media Law: Cases and Materials (Harlow 2000)Google Scholar, ch. 6.

54 See Spilsbury, S., Guide to Advertising and Sales Promotion Law (London 1998)Google Scholar; C.R. Munro, “Self-Regulation in the Media” [1997] P.L. 6.

55 See generally Scott, C. and Black, J., Cranston's Consumers and the Law, 3rd edn. (London 2000)Google Scholar.

56 Weatherill, S., EC Consumer Law and Policy (London 1997)Google Scholar, ch. 6; Collins, A.M., “Commercial Speech and the Free Movement of Goods and Services at Community Law”, in O’Reilly, J. (ed.), Human Rights and Constitutional Law (Dublin 1992)Google Scholar.

57 (C-267/91) Criminal Proceedings against Keck and Mithouard [1993] E.C.R. 1-6097, [1995] 1 C.M.L.R.101.

58 (C-405/98) Konsumentombudsmannen v. Gourmet International Products [2001] 2 C.M.L.R. 31.

59 Broadcasting Act 1990, s. 202.

60 Gibbons, T., Regulating the Media, 2nd edn. (London 1998)Google Scholar.

61 The Advertising Standards Authority has been held subject to judicial review, and more recently has been held to be a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998: R. v. Advertising Standards Authority, ex p. The Insurance Service plc [1990] C.O.D. 42; R. v. Advertising Standards Authority, ex p. Matthias Rath [2001] E.M.L.R. 581. In the latter case, Turner J. accepted that the Codes’ rules on which the Authority adjucated had an “underpinning of subordinate legislation”. However, it has been submitted that doubts remain on the issues of whether the Codes are “prescribed by law” and whether all of their provisions are related to legitimate aims: see R.G. Lawson, “Challenging the Advertising Standards Authority” (2001) 151 N.L.J. 526.

62 See, for example, Compaq Computer Corporation v. Dell Computer Corporation Ltd. [1992] F.S.R. 93, where an interlocutory injunction was granted in an instance of comparative advertising.

63 Williamson Music v. Pearson Partnership [1987] F.S.R. 97.

64 Hutchison Personal Communications Ltd. v. Hook Advertising Ltd. [1996] F.S.R. 549.

65 Wagamama Ltd. v. City Centre Restaurants plc [1995] F.S.R. 713.

66 Mecklermedia Corporation v. DC Congress Gmhh [1997] F.S.R. 627.

67 Fraser v. Evans [1969] 1 Q.B. 349.

68 British Steel Corporation v. Granada Television Ltd. [1981] A.C. 1096.

69 Fraser v. Thames Television Ltd. [1984] Q.B.44.

70 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, ss. 1-8.

71 Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988, ss. 1 (l)(a), 3.

72 University of London Press v. University Tutorial Press [1916] 2 Ch. 601, 608 per Peterson J.

73 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s. 4 (1).

74 Data Protection Act 1998. s. 3. See Jay, R. and Hamilton, A., Data Protection Law and Practice (London 1999)Google Scholar, ch. 15.

75 HC Standing Committee D col. 212 (21 May 1998).

76 Obscene Publications Act 1959, s. 4(1).

77 As in Shaw v. DPP [1962] A.C. 220, although the case is better remembered for the conviction on the alternative charge of conspiracy to corrupt public morals.

78 DPP v. Jordan [1977] A.C. 699.

79 Gardner, J., “Freedom of Expression”, in McCrudden, C. and Chambers, G. (eds.), Individual Rights and the Law in Britain (Oxford 1994), at p. 215Google Scholar.

80 Hare, I., “Is the Privileged Position of Political Expression Justified?”, in Beatson, J. and Cripps, Y. (eds.), Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Information (Oxford 2000)Google Scholar. Christopher Forsyth's paper in the same book also has a sceptical tone.

81 The leading decision on the meaning of “artistic craftsmanship” in the legislation on copyright is Hensher v. Restawile [1976] A.C. 64, in which the speeches notably lack uniformity of approach: see Cornish, W.R., Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 4th edn. (London 1999), pp. 390392Google Scholar.

82 Karlen, P.H., “What is Art? A Sketch for a Legal Definition” (1978) 94 L.Q.R. 383; Kearns, P., The Legal Concept of Art (Oxford 1998)Google Scholar, ch. 3.

83 [1998] Q.B. 294. See J. Stevens and D. Feldman, “Broadcasting Advertisements by Bodies with Political Objects” [1997] P.L.615.

84 Broadcasting Act 1990, s. 92. The decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Vgt Verein Gegen Tierfabriken v. Switzerland (2002) 34 E.H.R.R. 4 will have to be taken account of in this area.

85 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

86 Ibid., at p. 266 per Brennan J.

87 (1992) 15 E.H.R.R. 244.

88 Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 Q.B. 256.

89 376 U.S. 254 (1964).

90 (1990) 12 E.H.R.R. 161.

91 Shiffrin, S., “The First Amendment and Economic Regulation : Away from a General Theory of the First Amendment” (1983) 78 Northwestern University Law Review 1212, 1213Google Scholar.

92 R. v. Advertising Standards Authority, ex p. Matthias Rath [2001] E.M.L.R. 581; R. (on the application of SmithKline Beecham) v. Advertising Standards Authority [2001] EWHC Admin 6, [2001] E.M.L.R. 598.

93 Used in the Finance Act 1915, s. 39. It was defined according to ordinary usage in Findlay & Co. v. Inland Revenue 1928 S.C. 218.

94 Used in the Sale of Goods Act 1979, s. 39 (7), as substituted by the Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994, s. 2.

95 Used in the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, s. 48.

96 Used in the Finance Act 1994, s. 120 (3).

97 Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, s. 170.

98 Small Lotteries and Gaming Act 1956, s. 1(1).

99 Section 3(3) defines it as: “(a) any contract for the supply of goods or services; (b) any loan or other transaction for the provision of finance and any guarantee or indemnity in respect of any such transaction or of any other financial obligation; and (c) any other transaction or activity (whether of a commercial, industrial, financial, professional or other similar character) into which a State enters or in which it engages otherwise than in the exercise of sovereign authority By section 4, the phrase “commercial purposes” is defined by reference to section 3(3).

100 I Congreso del Partido [1983] 1 A.C. 244; Littrell v. United States of America (No. 2) [1994] 4 All E.R. 203; Arab Republic of Egypt v. Gamal-Eldin [1996] 2 All E.R. 237.

101 Freedom of Information Act 2000, s. 43.

102 A United States decision which typified anomalies was Koch v. FTC 206 F. 2d 311 (1953). While upholding the Federal Trade Commission's finding that advertisements for pharmaceutical drugs contained falsities, the Sixth Circuit court conceded that the statutory provisions relied on could not have been applied to a book written by the drugs company's president (which made similar claims) without violation of the First Amendment.

103 Scanlon, T.M., “Freedom of Expression and Categories of Expression” (1979) 40 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 519, 540Google Scholar.

104 Schauer, F., Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry (Cambridge 1982), p. 160Google Scholar.

105 Ramsay, I., Advertising, Culture and the Law (London 1996), p. 2Google Scholar.

106 Packard, V., The Hidden Persuaders (London 1957)Google Scholar.

107 Galbraith, J.K., The Affluent Society (London 1958)Google Scholar.

108 Hoggart, R., The Uses of Literacy (London 1957)Google Scholar; Williams, R., Television: Technology and Cultural Form (London 1974)Google Scholar; Communications (London 1965).

109 Veljanovski, C. (ed.), Freedom in Broadcasting (London 1989), p. 107Google Scholar.

110 Ibid.

111 425 U.S. 748, 763 (1976).

112 425 U.S. 748, 756-757 (1976).

113 Dworkin, R.M., Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution (Cambridge, USA 1996)Google Scholar, ch. 8. For some discussion of theoretical justifications generally, see Barendt, E.M., Freedom of Speech (Oxford 1985)Google Scholar; Feldman, D., Civil Liberties and Human Rights in England and Wales, 2nd edn. (Oxford 2002)Google Scholar, ch. 13.

114 Meiklejohn, A., Political Freedom (New York 1965)Google Scholar; Bork, R., “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems” (1971) 47 Indiana Law Journal 1Google Scholar. Interestingly, both were later to retract their narrower views: Meiklejohn, “The First Amendment is an Absolute” 1961 Supreme Court Review 245, 263; Bork said that he had abandoned his view in the Senate hearings which considered his nomination to the Supreme Court.

115 Redish, M., “The First Amendment in the Marketplace: Commercial Speech and the Values of Free Expression” (1971) 39 George Washington Law Review 429Google Scholar; “The Value of Free Speech” (1982) 130 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 591; Coase, R.H., “Advertising and Free Speech” (1977) 6 Journal of Legal Studies 1Google Scholar; Haiman, F.S., Speech and Law in a Free Society (Chicago 1981)Google Scholar.

116 [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712, 767 (1989) 54 D.L.R. (4th) 577, 618.

117 Schauer, F., Free Speech: A Philosophical Enquiry (Cambridge 1982), p. 159Google Scholar.

118 Quinn, G., “Extending the Coverage of Freedom of Expression to Commercial Speech: A Comparative Perspective”, in Heffernan, L. (ed.), Human Rights: A European Perspective (Dublin 1994), at p. 231Google Scholar.

119 Human Rights Act 1998, s. 2.

120 K.D. Ewing, “The Human Rights Act and Parliamentary Democracy” (1999) 62 M.L.R. 79, 86.