Court Opinion

ID: 9742920
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:22:45.18676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:37.844520
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE CLARK, dissenting: I would uphold the judgment of the circuit court. To determine the constitutionality of a given restriction of first amendment rights, the court must weigh the State’s interest in the restriction against the policies underlying the first amendment generally, and against the rights of the speaker and his audience particularly. (See, e.g., Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Control Council (1976), 425 U.S. 748, 756-70, 48 L. Ed. 2d 346, 355-63, 96 S. Ct. 1817, 1822-30.) Here the State’s purported interest is in protecting its citizens from being misled by advertisements falsely claiming exorbitant benefits from chiropractic services. I believe the majority seriously underestimates the intelligence, common sense, and good judgment of the people of this State. Consequently, the majority has vastly overestimated the State’s interest in restricting the plaintiff’s right to speak and the people’s right to hear him. The majority concedes that the statute is grossly overbroad, yet it still finds plaintiff’s conduct punishable. (See 68 Ill. 2d at 590-92.) The majority does not, however, adequately delineate what it finds objectionable in the plaintiff’s advertisements. Is it the free chicken? The suggestion that drugs are not the answer to all problems? The statements of satisfied former patients? The Department does not contend that plaintiff promised anything that he could not deliver, nor does it contend that plaintiff was proposing to do anything unlawful or otherwise harmful. In the absence of such a showing, I would let the people of this State make up their own minds about the value of chiropractic services, rather than have the Department do it for them. I therefore respectfully dissent. ,