Reference no: EM133197340

Essay Question

Brief Description:
Scott Fane, a CPA licensed to practice in Florida and New Jersey, recently moved to Florida. In Florida he along with other CPAs were illegally prohibited by the Florida Board of Accountancy from personally soliciting new business executives and accounts. Scott ended up suing the Florida Board of Accountancy.

Arguments:
Scott's argument is that his first amendment right of free speech is being violated. In his case, the protected speech was commercial speech. When he reached out to the business executives, he did not communicate any misleading information and he was only doing so to secure business.

The Florida Board of Accountancy argument was that commercial speech such as Fane's solicitations do not deserve the same protection as other forms of speech. They felt that by prohibiting CPA's from soliciting new business in Florida it would not only keep CPA work in their state high, but also ensure more ethical behavior by CPSs.

Analysis:
There have been many cases addressing commercial speech as a form of free speech, focusing on what should be allowed and what shouldn't. This case is similar to another commercial speech case, Salib v City of Mesa, where Salib, the owner of a Donut shop in Mesa, displayed a large advertisement sign in his shop window designed to attract customers. He was later prohibited from doing so by the city. The City informed Salib he was violating its municipal sign code which prohibited him from covering more than 30% of the store's windows with signs. Salib challenged the decision in court but city of Mesa won the case because the city could show that its regulation was narrowly drawn as to limits on speech in the context of time, place and manner (the so-called three part test) which a law such as this must pass to be deemed constitutional.