Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we argue that, in the interests of protecting rights of political free speech, it is of central importance that the distinction between such speech and commercial free speech is maintained. The article combines a clear focus on the commercial speech doctrine as developed (using a categorisation approach) by the US Supreme Court with a review of the proportionality approach used in Canada and the European Union (EU). It was in the US that commercial speech was first protected and the case law there related to this area is both extensive and detailed. That jurisprudence continues to exert a substantial influence internationally. The case law in the EU and Canada is also significant not least because it offers an important alternative mode of reasoning when claims for constitutional protection for commercial speech are advanced These are the two dominant analytical methods deployed, internationally, to address the issue of the constitutional protection of commercial speech. Due to the unfortunate but manifest incoherence of the US commercial speech doctrine, as it has evolved, the US approach should not, now, be followed in Hong Kong. The Canadian and EU alternative approaches, however, offer a more coherent framework for reviewing when, and to what extent, commercial speech may deserve protection. Ultimately we take the view that, in the case of Hong Kong, it makes sense for the courts to develop their own view (drawing on relevant international jurisprudence) on the degree to which commercial speech may attract constitutional protection. Courts elsewhere in Asia (and beyond) should also carefully consider their own best way forward in addressing this important issue.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.031 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".