Opinion ID: 2191418
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: II-C The Merits of the Speech Challenges Against Particular Provisions of the Maine Act.

Text: Having expressed these important preliminary points regarding the framework of our appellate scrutiny in this case, we address in more comprehensive detail the merits of the commercial speech issues the parties and the Superior Court have formulated for our appellate review and determination. In its most recent decision concerning commercial speech, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, supra, the Supreme Court of the United States has traced through all of its cases decided since Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976) the developing clarification of the nature and extent of the protection of commercial speech from unwarranted governmental regulation, conferred by the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. ___ U.S. ___, at ___, 100 S.Ct. 2343, at 2349, 65 L.Ed.2d 341. The Court summarized the results as follows: In commercial speech cases . . . a four-part analysis has developed. At the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. Id. at ___, 100 S.Ct. at 2351. We therefore apply this four-part analysis to those provisions of the Maine Act challenged, here, as being a governmental regulation of commercial speech contravening First-Fourteenth Amendment protections.