1. Commercial speech receives what form of protection under the First Amendment:
ID: 448303 • Letter: 1
Question
1. Commercial speech receives what form of protection under the First Amendment:
A. Intermediate protection
B. Minimal protection
C. No protection
D. Full constitutional protection
E. strict scrutiny protection
2. The best statement of the test applied in determining if a defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries is:
A. Was the injury foreseeable to the plaintiff prior to the injury's occurrence?
B. Was it foreseeable to the plaintiff that the defendant would engage in this conduct?
C. Given this particular injury to the plaintiff, was it foreseeable that the defendant was the cause?
D. Should it have been foreseeable to the defendant that the defendant's conduct could lead to this kind of injury?
E. Was it foreseeable to the plaintiff that this kind of injury could occur under the particular conditions that the injury did occur?
Explanation / Answer
1. The correct answer is Option A - Intermediate Protection The court in its decision in Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council decided that commercial speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction is protected by the First Amendment The Court while protecting the speech,also recognized that there were common sense differences between commercial speech and other varieties of expression, thus meriting less than full First Amendment protection. However, commercial speech is protected only if it concerns lawful activity and is not false or misleading. Even protected commercial speech can be regulated if the government can show that - (1) the regulation promotes a substantial governmental interest; (2) the regulation directly and materially advances that interest; and (3) the regulation is narrowly tailored. 2. The correct answer is Option D - Should it have been foreseeable to the defendant that the defendant's conduct could lead to this kind of injury? Two types of causation need to be proven— Actual cause (also known as cause in fact) and Proximate cause. Causation is the link between a person and another person’s injury. Even if a defendant in a negligence case is careless or reckless, she cannot be held liable for injuring the plaintiff unless her negligent behavior caused the injury. Actual Causation: Did the defendant actually cause the harm to occur Proximate Causation- Was the cause foreseeable. Even if a defendant‘s action was the “but-for” cause of a plaintiff’s injury, the defendant may not be liable for damages if her action was so far removed from the injury that he could not have foreseen that her action would cause that kind of harm. If the court determines that a particular cause was the cause in fact of an injury, it then asks whether that same cause was also a proximate cause. Proximate cause asks whether the injury was foreseeable.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.