First Amendment
413 U.S. 376 (1973)
Study notes for Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
Regulation of discriminatory advertising practices is permissible under the First Amendment if the speech is categorized as commercial.
In Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, the Supreme Court addressed the intersection of commercial speech and anti-discrimination laws. The Court determined that the separation of job listings by gender was a form of discriminatory advertising that the government has a legitimate interest in regulating. Professors will likely emphasize the Court's reasoning that commercial speech, while deserving of some protection under the First Amendment, does not warrant the same level of protection as political speech, especially when it may perpetuate societal discrimination.
The ruling reinforces the idea that First Amendment rights can be balanced against other significant societal interests, such as the elimination of sex discrimination in employment. In this context, students should pay attention to the implications of categorizing speech as commercial and how it affects the level of scrutiny applied to government regulations on such speech.
Commercial speech can be reined in if it perpetuates discrimination.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. | The Court held that commercial speech is protected under the First Amendment but did not deal with the discrimination aspect. |
| Cent. Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York | Focused on advertising content restrictions; did not address discriminatory implications directly. |
| New York Times Co. v. Sullivan | Involved political speech which is given heightened protection, unlike commercial speech involved in this case. |
Regulating discriminatory advertising promotes gender equality and combats systemic discrimination in hiring practices.
Such regulation may infringe on the free speech rights of businesses and limit their ability to target specific demographics in advertising.
This case may appear on exams in the context of First Amendment discussions regarding the scope and limits of commercial speech and how such speech intersects with public policy interests, such as anti-discrimination efforts.