Florine Ching v. Ofc. Neal Walsh

Oral argument

• Argued

  31 min recording
  Listen

Source: CourtListener oral-argument corpus (CC0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that restriction on alcohol advertisements in college student publication regulated speech concerning lawful activity because the speech was not “solely distributed to underage students” but rather “also reach[ed| of-age readers”
• upholding Virginia regulation that “prohibits various types of advertisements for alcohol in any ‘college student publication’ ... define[d] as any college or university publication that is: (1) prepared, edited, or published primarily by its students; (2
• “[A]dvertisements for age-restricted— but otherwise lawful—products concern lawful activity where the audience comprises both underage and of-age members.”
• “Though the correlation between advertising and demand alone is insufficient to justify advertising bans in every situation, here it is strengthened because ‘college student publications’ play an inimitable role on campus.” (internal citations omitted)
• “Though the correlation between advertising and demand alone is insufficient to justify advertising bans in every situation, here it is strengthened because ‘college student publications’ play an inimitable role on campus.” (internal 16 citations omitted)
• “It is counterintuitive for alcohol vendors to spend their money on advertisements in newspapers with relatively limited circulation, directed primarily at college students, if they believed that these ads would not increase demand by college students.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).