Reply:
Rodney A. Smolla, Information, Imagery, and the First Amendment: A Case for Expansive Protection of Commercial Speech, 71 TEXAS L. REV. 777 (1993).
 

Abstract:
In this reply to Professors Collins and Skover’s article appearing in this same issue of the Texas Law Review, Professor Smolla acknowledges that they paint a realistic picture of current commercial speech as serving neither rational decision-making by consumers nor individualism (the two ideals that free speech is supposed to uphold). However, Smolla argues, perhaps commercial speech is not as harmful as Collins and Skover seem to think it is. While Collins and Skover wish for an ideal “marketplace of ideas” in which speech that fails to serve free speech’s ideals is not protected, Smolla posits that any deleterious impact that modern advertising has on consumers is nominal. In fact, Smolla contends, in order to preserve a truly open society, the law should probably protect commercial speech to a greater extent than it presently does.