Bigelow v. Virginia
Bigelow v. Virginia is a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1975 that addressed the intersection of free speech and commercial advertising. The case arose when the Virginia Weekly, under editor Jeffrey Bigelow, published an advertisement promoting a New York organization that assisted women in obtaining legal abortions. Bigelow was convicted under a Virginia statute that prohibited encouraging abortion, which he argued infringed upon his First Amendment rights to free press. The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, sided with Bigelow, overturning the state statute and challenging the precedent set by Valentine v. Chrestensen, which had previously allowed states to regulate commercial speech more freely.
The Court emphasized that the First Amendment protects the dissemination of truthful information regarding lawful services, asserting that commercial speech deserves some level of constitutional protection. While not establishing a blanket protection for all commercial advertisements, the ruling signaled a gradual expansion of First Amendment rights in the context of advertising, influencing subsequent cases and legal interpretations. Bigelow v. Virginia highlights the ongoing debates surrounding free speech, the rights of publishers, and the regulation of commercial information, particularly in sensitive areas such as reproductive rights.
Bigelow v. Virginia
Date: June 16, 1975
Citation: 421 U.S. 809
Issue: Commercial speech
Significance: The Supreme Court declared that the First Amendment protects commercial advertising to “some degree” and overturned a state statute prohibiting advertisements of abortion services.
In 1971 the Virginia Weekly of Charlottesville published an advertisement for an organization that helped women obtain legal abortions in the state of New York. The newspaper’s editor, Jeffrey Bigelow, was convicted for violating a state statute that made it a misdemeanor to encourage or help a woman to have an abortion. Bigelow argued that the statute infringed on his free press rights under the First Amendment. In response, the state referred to Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942), in which the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment placed no restrictions on governmental regulations of “purely commercial advertising.”
By a 7-2 vote, the Court overturned the statute and greatly limited the Valentine ruling. Justice Harry A. Blackmun’s opinion for the Court emphasized that the spirit of the First Amendment favors the widespread dissemination of information and opinions. Blackmum noted that the advertisement contained truthful information about a legal service. The Court refused to decide the extent to which states might regulate commercial advertisements, especially those dealing with harmful activities. It was clear, nevertheless, that commercial speech merited a lesser degree of constitutional protection than political and religious speech.
Subsequent to Bigelow, the Court issued a series of decisions, such as Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977), that continued to expand First Amendment protection for commercial advertising. In Forty-four Liquormart v. Rhode Island (1996), the Court struck down a state ban on the advertising of alcoholic beverage prices, even though the Twenty-first Amendment gives states broad authority to regulate the sale of the product.