Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U.S.476 (1995)

Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., 514 U.S.476 (1995)

In Rubin v. Coors, 514 U.S. 476 (1995), the Supreme Court held that a federal statute and related regulations that prevented Coors from disclosing the alcohol content on its beer labels and in product advertising was a violation of Coors’ constitutional right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment. Based on this case answer the following questions:Why does it make a difference whether the speech in which Coors was engaged (disclosure of the alcohol content) was commercial speech or noncommercial speech? What type of speech (commercial or noncommercial) did the Supreme Court determine that Coors was engaged in? Suppose Coors started to sell cocaine and wanted to disclose the purity of their cocaine on the packaging and in their advertisements. What type of speech would this be? Would disclosure of the purity of the cocaine be protected under the First Amendment?

Why does it make a difference whether the speech in which Coors was engaged (disclosure of the alcohol content) was commercial speech or noncommercial speech?

Freedom of speech has been curtailed by the commercial speech doctrine for past five decades, with this category of speech getting less constitutional protection than noncommercial speech. However, it is reasonable to conclude that truthful commercial speech get a significant level of protection by the constitution, almost the same as the protection accorded to noncommercial speech (Thierer, 2010). Where the government has to suppress commercial speech, it is vital to show harm uniquely associated with it. If the speech were commercial, the first amendment would apply with a few restrictions because it was not misleading and did not call for any illegal activity. On the contrary, if it was noncommercial speech, there would have been complete protection under the first amendment.

What type of speech (commercial or noncommercial) did the Supreme Court determine that Coors was engaged in?

The Supreme Court determined that Coors was engaged in commercial speech. The profit motivation outweighed any additional value. The motive in commercial speech is to sell a product or induce customers to buy a product (Balkin, 2015). The speech in question was an accurate statement on the label of a beer bottle, of the alcohol content contained therein. If the statements about the percentage of alcohol were published by an outsider, such as a magazine, it wouldn’t constitute commercial speech.

Suppose Coors started to sell cocaine and wanted to disclose the purity of their cocaine on the packaging and in their advertisements. What type of speech would this be? Would disclosure of the purity of the cocaine be protected under the First Amendment?

Because the motive would be to induce customers to buy the cocaine, it would be labeled as commercial speech. However, “The first prong of the Central Hudson test requires that the speech at issue concerns lawful activity and is not misleading. Commercial speech that is illegal or false is not entitled to any First Amendment protection” (Rauer, 2012, p. 702). Therefore, the disclosure of cocaine’s purity would not be protected by the first amendment because it concerns an unlawful activity (sale of an illegalized product).

References

Balkin, J. M. (2015). Information fiduciaries and the first amendment. UCDL Rev., 49, 1183.

Rauer, S. (2012). When the First Amendment and Public Health Collide: The Court’s Increasingly Strict Constitutional Scrutiny of Health Regulations That Restrict Commercial Speech. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 38(4), 690–712. https://doi.org/10.1177/009885881203800404

Thierer, A. (2010). Advertising, Commercial Speech, and First Amendment Parity. Charleston L. Rev., 5, 503.