Sean DawsonBus. Law 510July 14,1998 Essay, Research PaperPosadas De Puerto Rico Associates vs.
Tourism CompanyU.S. Supreme Court1986Facts: Substantive: Gambling was legalized in Puerto Rico in 1948, but prohibited advertisement ofcasinos within Puerto Rico. 1978 the plaintiff in error, Posadas de Puerto Rico, was fined twice by the bureau implementing the antiadervertisement jurisprudence.Procedural: The plaintiff in error challenged the jurisprudence, claiming that it violated the plaintiff in errors 1st. Amendment freedom of address rights.
The Superior Court of Puerto Rico determined that the jurisprudence as applied was constitutional. The Puerto Rico Supreme Court affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues: Does the legislative assembly have the right to censor certain sorts of commercial free address?Retentions: Yes.Rational: Since this instance is sing limitation of pure commercial address, the tribunal is guided by the regulations set down in Central Hudson Gas & A ; Electric Corp vs. Public Service Commission. There are four guidelines set forth in the preceding case: 1) commercial speech receives a limited form of 1st amendment protection as long as the activity is legal and not misleading, 2) comm. Speech may be restricted if the governments interest in doing so is so substantial, 3) the restriction directly advances the govt. asserted interest, and 4) the restriction is no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest.1) The activity is legal and is not misleading.2) In this case the government believes that the advertisement of casino games will lead to a host of criminal activity, such as: prostitution, organized crime, and will have a detrimental effect on the moral and cultural identify of the locals.3) The advertising of casino gambling aimed at the residents of Puerto Rico would serve to increase the demand for the product advertised, thus restricting advertising would lower the demand among the locals to gamble.4) Since casinos are not restricted when advertising to tourists, the court does not think that is more extensive than necessary.