19 Sep After reviewing Rubin v. Coors, 514 U.S. 476 (1995),

After reviewing Rubin v. Coors, 514 U.S. 476 (1995), it proves that Coors was engaged (disclosure of alcohol content) in a commercial speech. The purpose of Coors’ communication was for marketing purposes to advertise their beer for profit. This marketing communication on behalf of Coro was intended to promote their beer and intended to convince the audience to purchase their beer that makes it commercial speech (Langvardt, Barnes, Prenkert, McCrory & Perry, 2019). On the other hand, if Coors would not communicate the beer for sale or encourage a purchase it would have been a noncommercial speech. The Supreme Court determined that Coors was engaged in a commercial speech due to advertising and selling their beer for a profit. According to Rubin v. Coors, 514 U.S. 476 (1995), “Although some regulations of statements about alcohol content that increase consumer awareness would be entirely proper, this statutory provision is nothing more than an attempt to blindfold the public”.

If Coors stated to sell cocaine and chose to disclose the purity of their cocaine on the packaging and their advertisements, it would be categorized as a commercial speech. The decision to advertise the purity of their cocaine for the purpose to persuade potential consumers to purchase it is why it would be categorized as a commercial speech. Businesses have First Amendment rights, however, not all speech of the business is fully protected (Langvardt, Barnes, Prenkert, McCrory & Perry, 2019). The disclosure of the purity of the cocaine would not be protected under the First Amendment because selling cocaine is unlawful.