Sean Dawson

Sean Dawson Bus. Law 510 July 14,1998 Posadas De Puerto Rico Associates vs. Tourism Company U.S. Supreme Court 1986 Facts: Substantive: Gambling was legalized in Puerto Rico in 1948, but prohibited advertising of casinos within Puerto Rico. 1978 the appellant, Posadas de Puerto Rico, was fined twice by the agency enforcing the antiadervertisement law. Procedural: The appellant challenged the law, claiming that it violated the appellants 1st.

Amendment freedom of speech rights. The Superior Court of Puerto Rico determined that the law as applied was constitutional. The Puerto Rico Supreme Court affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Issues: Does the legislature have the right to ban certain kinds of commercial free speech? Holdings: Yes. Rational: Since this case is regarding restriction of pure commercial speech, the court is guided by the rules set down in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp vs. Public Service Commission. There are four guidelines set forth in the preceding case: 1) commercial speech receives a limited form of 1st amendment protection as long as the activity is legal and not misleading, 2) comm. Speech may be restricted if the governments interest in doing so is so substantial, 3) the restriction directly advances the govt.

asserted interest, and 4) the restriction is no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. 1) The activity is legal and is not misleading. 2) In this case the government believes that the advertisement of casino games will lead to a host of criminal activity, such as: prostitution, organized crime, and will have a detrimental effect on the moral and cultural identify of the locals. 3) The advertising of casino gambling aimed at the residents of Puerto Rico would serve to increase the demand for the product advertised, thus restricting advertising would lower the demand among the locals to gamble. 4) Since casinos are not restricted when advertising to tourists, the court does not think that is more extensive than necessary.