Citation network
Cincinnati Vs. Discovery Network, Inc.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 24, 1993
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Distinguished
-
Cincinnati v. DiscoverySearch
-
Network, Inc. - 507 U.S. 410 (1993) October Term, 1992 Syllabus City of Cincinnati V. DiscoverySearch
-
standard applied to the regulation of commercial speech in Board of Trustees of State University of N. Y. v. FoxSearch
-
content neutral and cannot qualify as a valid time, place, or manner restriction on protected speech. See, e. g., Ward v. RockSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
the Fourteenth Amendment has been construed to make this prohibition applicable to state action. See, e. g., Stromberg v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Lovell v. GriffinSearch
-
the District Court held, relying on Board of Trustees of State University of N. Y. v. FoxSearch
-
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. PublicSearch
-
Ibid. 9 The importance of the Court of 7See Sentinel Communications CO. V. WattsSearch
-
was unprotected by the First Amendment, even though half of its content consisted of political protest. Valentine v. ChrestensenSearch
-
of magazine subscriptions was a sufficient reason for denying First Amendment protection to that activity. Breard v. AlexandriaSearch
-
communication do not qualify their entitlement to constitutional protection. Thus, in Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. VirginiaSearch
-
Amendment protection because money is spent to project it, as in a paid advertisement of one form or another. Buckley v. ValeoSearch
-
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. HumanSearch
-
U. S., at 266. Speech likewise is protected even though it is carried in a form that is 'sold' for profit, Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
and even though it may involve a solicitation to purchase or otherwise payor contribute money. New York Times Co. v. SullivanSearch
-
is noneditorial, and merely reports a fact. Purely factual matter of public interest may claim protection. Bigelow v. VirginiaSearch
-
is protected by the First Amendment. Id., at 762.17 17 JUSTICE BLACKMUN, writing for the Court in Bates v. StateSearch
-
though entirely commercial, may often carry information of import to significant issues of the day. See Bigelow v. VirginiaSearch
-
commercial transaction is entitled to lesser protection than other constitutionally guaranteed expression. See Ohralik v. OhioSearch
-
Service Comm'n of New York, 447 U. S., at 561. We did not, however, use that definition in either Bolger v. YoungsSearch
-
Bolger, 463 U. S., at 66 (quoting Virginia Pharmacy, 425 U. S., at 762, in turn quoting Pittsburgh Press Co. v. PittsburghSearch
-
about the proper v. ProcterSearch
-
it raises some of the same concerns as the newsrack ordinance struck down in Lakewood v. PlainSearch
-
an impermissible means of responding to the city's admittedly legitimate interests. Cf. Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. MembersSearch
-
nonlabor picket- it the potential for invidious discrimination of disfavored subjects. See also Metromedia, Inc. v. SanSearch
-
Cf. Arkansas Writers' Project, Inc. v. RaglandSearch
-
and n. 3, and Cincinnati does not reassert that particular argument in this Court. As we 20 Metromedia, Inc. v. SanSearch
-
Ohralik v. OhioSearch
-
A closer examination of one of the cases we have mentioned, Bolger v. YoungsSearch
-
U. S., at 71-72 (citing Carey v. PopulationSearch
-
U. S., at 416, quoting Milwaukee Social Democratic Publishing Co. v. BurlesonSearch
-
Ward v. RockSearch
-
Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781 , 791 (1989), quoting Clark v. CommunitySearch
-
permissible if it applies equally to music, political speech, and advertising. See gen- 429 erally Kovacs v. CooperSearch
-
Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. MembersSearch
-
from defending its newsrack policy as content neutral. By the same reasoning, the city's heavy reliance on Renton v. PlaytimeSearch
-
Cincinnati's ban on commercial newsracks cannot withstand scrutiny under Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. PublicSearch
-
Servo Comm'n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557 (1980), and Board of Trustees of State University of N. Y. v. FoxSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial