Banning of Advertisements of Pesticides

Apply: Advertising Bans Case Study
Student’s Name
Institution
Course
Professor’s Name
Date
Apply: Advertising Bans Case Study
Advertising is subject to legal regulation as well as potential protection by the First Amendment (Calvert et al., 2018). In the case of the ban of the advertising of all pesticides by the state of California, the court will use the Commercial Speech Doctrine to determine whether it is constitutional for the state to ban the advertising of all pesticides. As per the doctrine, truthful advertising may be regulated by the government if three conditions are met. First, there must be a substantial interest by the state to justify the regulation. Second, there must be evidence that the regulation advances the above-mentioned interest. Third, there must be a reasonable fit between the interest and the regulation by the government.
In applying the Commercial Speech Doctrine, the state of California seems to have a substantial interest to justify the ban: to reduce pollution in streams and rivers and consequently avoid the killing of aquatic species, including fish. There is also evidence that the regulation may advance the interest of the state, given that biologists have determined that pesticide poisoning is responsible for the death of 30% of fish in the state's rivers and streams. However, it appears that the ban does not satisfy the third condition. Given that 55% of the pesticides are not harmful to fish and the failure of approach in other states, there is no reasonable fit between the need to stop fish poisoning and the ban.
If California can prove a link between the advertising of products and the death of aquatic species substantially, several products could be subject to the ban. It is important to recognize that apart from pesticides, there are other products that may be linked to water pollution and potentially the death of aquatic species. Arca...