The petition of the day is:
Issues: (1) Whether–when the Supreme Court held in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio that an exception allowing for less rigorous review applies when the government seeks to combat misleading commercial speech by requiring (as an alternative to restricting speech) the disclosure of “purely factual and uncontroversial information” that is not “unduly burdensome” and is “reasonably related to the state’s interest in preventing deception of consumers”–this reduced standard of scrutiny of compelled commercial speech applies beyond the need to prevent consumer deception; and (2) whether, when the Zauderer standard applies, it is sufficient that the compelled speech be: factually accurate, even if controversial and, when read as a whole, potentially misleading; and merely reasonably related to any non-“trivial” governmental interest.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY