It shouldn't be and whoever decided it is should have that reversed.
"The Supreme Court extended First Amendment free speech protection to commercial speech in Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. (1976). The court held that commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment because it serves the public interest by providing information about products and services."
And since it became apparent that it's not the only thing it does, but also hurts people and leads to destruction of social and natural environment that decision should get reversed after 46 years. Especially since technology enabled us to have a single all encompassing catalog of products and services which customers can draw such information from whenever they request it instead of advertisements being shoved into their faces from all sources causing them psychological harm at no small cost to the economy.
(Although, IANAL, so I can't tell if that page is an accurate summary or if it's the legal equivalent of someone ranting about why the CEO of Facebook can't stop naughty pictures showing up in Google search results…)
"The Supreme Court extended First Amendment free speech protection to commercial speech in Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. (1976). The court held that commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment because it serves the public interest by providing information about products and services."
And since it became apparent that it's not the only thing it does, but also hurts people and leads to destruction of social and natural environment that decision should get reversed after 46 years. Especially since technology enabled us to have a single all encompassing catalog of products and services which customers can draw such information from whenever they request it instead of advertisements being shoved into their faces from all sources causing them psychological harm at no small cost to the economy.