★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★★Open research. Global perspectives.
editor@theamericanjournals.comPublisher Home ↗
Social Sciences OPEN ACCESS

Application Problems Of Commercial Speech Doctrine In CIS Countries: On The Example Of Russia And Uzbekistan

Khodjaev Bakhshillo Kamolovich
Dean Of The Private Law Faculty At The Tashkent State University Of Law, Doctor Of Laws (LL.D.) From Nagoya University, Uzbekistan
DOI Crossref DOI 10.37547/tajssei/Volume02Issue08-01
tajssei 2020
VOL. 2 / NO. 08 AUGUST
FULL TEXT PP. 1-10
DOWNLOAD PDF

View all articles in this issue ↗

VOLUME 2
ISSUE 08
YEAR 2020
PAGES 1-10
RESEARCH OVERVIEW

Abstract

This article analyzes the application of the Commercial Speech Doctrine in CIS countries such as
Russian and Uzbekistan. The article shows that the commercial speech doctrine was implemented as
a constitutional principle of information freedom; however Federal Advertising law of Russia gives
priority to the public health rather than commercial speech protection. The article concludes that, in
CIS countries, especially in Uzbekistan and Russia, the government interest to control commercial
information flow has become superior to that of competitor and consumer interests. The presence of
strict legal standards in those countries causes unreasonable government interference in free
commercial speech of advertisers and restricts the flow of commercial information. Therefore, they
are unnecessary and excessive to proper regulation of misleading advertising. Hence, the main
principle of the commercial speech doctrine on the limitation of government intervention does not
work in practice.

RESEARCH TOPICS

Keywords

Commercial speech , First Amendment
SOURCES & SCHOLARSHIP

References

  1. R. H. Coase, “Advertising and Free
  2. Speech,” The Journal of Legal
  3. Studies 6, no. 1 (January 1, 1977): 1–34.
  4. “The 1st Amendment of the U.S.
  5. Constitution,” National Constitution
  6. Center – The 1st Amendment of the
  7. U.S. Constitution.
  8. Susan Edlavitch, “The Fairness
  9. Doctrine and Access to Reply To
  10. Product Commercials,” Indiana Law
  11. Journal 51, no. 3 (April 1, 1976): 768.
  12. Cohen, “Advertising & the First
  13. Amendment:” 60.
  14. Thomas Merrill, “First Amendment
  15. Protection for Commercial Advertising:
  16. The New Constitutional Doctrine,”
  17. University of Chicago Law Review 44,
  18. no. 1 (September 1, 1976): 242.
  19. Karl A. Boedecker, Fred W. Morgan,
  20. and Linda Berns Wright, “The Evolution
  21. of First Amendment Protection for
  22. Commercial Speech,” Journal of
  23. Marketing 59, no. 1 (1995): 42.
  24. See Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809
  25. (Supreme Court 1975).
  26. See Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S.
  27. (Supreme Court 1942).; Bigelow, 421
  28. U.S. 809.; Bates v. State Bar of Ariz.,
  29. U.S. 350 (Supreme Court 1977).
  30. Cohen, “Advertising & the First
  31. Amendment:” 61.
  32. Advertising which requires additional
  33. information, disclaimers or warnings
  34. also to be considered as unprotected
  35. commercial speech. See Va. Pharmacy
  36. Bd. v. Va. Consumer Council, 425 U.S.
  37. (Supreme Court 1976).
  38. The truthful and non-misleading
  39. commercial speech is usually evaluated
  40. on basis of "listener is self-determining
  41. agent", because true information is
  42. necessary in listener`s decision making
  43. capability. See Sullivan, “Cheap Spirits,
  44. Cigarettes, and Free Speech:” 156.
  45. Some judges of the US Supreme court
  46. suggested that an advertising, which
  47. has tendency to deceive is evaluated to
  48. be "less protected".
  49. Merrill, “First Amendment Protection
  50. for Commercial Advertising:” 213.
  51. Alex Kozinski and Stuart Banner,
  52. “Who’s Afraid of Commercial Speech?”
  53. Virginia Law Review 76, no. 4 (1990):