The IPKat has recently come across an interesting and provocative book, Freedom of Commercial Expression, published by Oxford University Press (355pp, hardback, £45). It has been written by Roger A. Shiner. Professor Shiner, who spent almost all his career as a philosopher at the University of Alberta, also deployed his talents as a lecturer in jurisprudence in that university’s Faculty of Law. This book is part of the fruit of his legal labours.
Professor Shiner notes that the courts in the United States, Canada and Europe currently grant constitutional protection to commercial advertising: but what is the legal and the philosophical basis for protecting the for freedom of commercial expression? Subjecting this topic to critical analysis, Shiner argues that the institutional history of such protection is one of ad hoc, not logical, development. He goes further and concludes that, even in terms of liberal democratic theory, freedom of commercial expression cannot be justified as a constitutional right. This conclusion will no doubt give rise to substantial anxiety on the part of those who rely upon it (comparative advertising and the use of sex in advertising are just two areas in which IPKat readers will recognise significant and difficult problems in need of solution). It is fair to suggest, however, that Professor Shiner is more interested in public clogs upon commercial expression (such as tobacco advertising) rather than private restrictions such as those based on trade mark rights or copyright.
More on freedom of commercial expression here, here and here
IPKAT BOOK NOTICE: FREEDOM OF COMMERCIAL EXPRESSION
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Friday, May 28, 2004
Rating:
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html