개인구독
소속 기관이 없으신 경우, 개인 정기구독을 하시면 저렴하게
논문을 무제한 열람 이용할 수 있어요.
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.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Recently, advertising on internet has been expanded. Advertisement raises several constitutional issues including protection of speech, degree of regulation and so on.
Most these issues may be based on how much commercial speech can be protected under constitutional law. so, the 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.
Finally, it is need to concentrate our interest on not the character of mass media or the method of advertising but the truth of speech when we decide the constitutional protection of the commercial advertisement.
목차
등록된 정보가 없습니다.
참고문헌 (26)
참고문헌 신청
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0