436
Stevens, J., dissenting
IV
Because the statutes challenged here regulate commercial speech in a manner that does not violate the First Amendment, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Justice Souter, with whom Justice Kennedy joins, concurring in part.
I agree with the Court that the restriction at issue here is constitutional under our decision in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N. Y., 447 U. S. 557 (1980), even if that restriction is judged "as applied to Edge itself." Ante, at 431. I accordingly believe it unnecessary to decide whether the restriction might appropriately be reviewed at a more lenient level of generality, and I take no position on that question.
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Blackmun joins, dissenting.
Three months ago this Court reaffirmed that the proponents of a restriction on commercial speech bear the burden of demonstrating a "reasonable fit" between the legislature's goals and the means chosen to effectuate those goals. See Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U. S. 410, 416 (1993). While the " 'fit' " between means and ends need not be perfect, an infringement on constitutionally protected speech must be " 'in proportion to the interest served.' " Id., at 417, n. 12 (quoting Board of Trustees of State Univ. of N. Y. v. Fox, 492 U. S. 469, 480 (1989)). In my opinion, the Federal Government's selective ban on lottery advertising unquestionably flunks that test; for the means chosen by the Government, a ban on speech imposed for the purpose of manipulating public behavior, is in no way proportionate to the Federal Government's asserted interest in protecting the antilottery policies of nonlottery States. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Page: Index Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: October 4, 2007