Articles | Open Access | DOI: https://doi.org/10.37547/tajssei/Volume02Issue08-01

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

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.

Keywords

Commercial speech, , First Amendment

References

R. H. Coase, “Advertising and Free

Speech,” The Journal of Legal

Studies 6, no. 1 (January 1, 1977): 1–34.

“The 1st Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution,” National Constitution

Center – The 1st Amendment of the

U.S. Constitution.

Susan Edlavitch, “The Fairness

Doctrine and Access to Reply To

Product Commercials,” Indiana Law

Journal 51, no. 3 (April 1, 1976): 768.

Cohen, “Advertising & the First

Amendment:” 60.

Thomas Merrill, “First Amendment

Protection for Commercial Advertising:

The New Constitutional Doctrine,”

University of Chicago Law Review 44,

no. 1 (September 1, 1976): 242.

Karl A. Boedecker, Fred W. Morgan,

and Linda Berns Wright, “The Evolution

of First Amendment Protection for

Commercial Speech,” Journal of

Marketing 59, no. 1 (1995): 42.

See Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809

(Supreme Court 1975).

See Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S.

(Supreme Court 1942).; Bigelow, 421

U.S. 809.; Bates v. State Bar of Ariz.,

U.S. 350 (Supreme Court 1977).

Cohen, “Advertising & the First

Amendment:” 61.

Advertising which requires additional

information, disclaimers or warnings

also to be considered as unprotected

commercial speech. See Va. Pharmacy

Bd. v. Va. Consumer Council, 425 U.S.

(Supreme Court 1976).

The truthful and non-misleading

commercial speech is usually evaluated

on basis of "listener is self-determining

agent", because true information is

necessary in listener`s decision making

capability. See Sullivan, “Cheap Spirits,

Cigarettes, and Free Speech:” 156.

Some judges of the US Supreme court

suggested that an advertising, which

has tendency to deceive is evaluated to

be "less protected".

Merrill, “First Amendment Protection

for Commercial Advertising:” 213.

Alex Kozinski and Stuart Banner,

“Who’s Afraid of Commercial Speech?”

Virginia Law Review 76, no. 4 (1990):

Article Statistics

Copyright License

Download Citations

How to Cite

Khodjaev Bakhshillo Kamolovich. (2020). Application Problems Of Commercial Speech Doctrine In CIS Countries: On The Example Of Russia And Uzbekistan. The American Journal of Social Science and Education Innovations, 2(08), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.37547/tajssei/Volume02Issue08-01