主張商業言論--一般人所認知的商業廣告受憲法保障和不受憲法保障的論點皆有之。美國聯邦最高法院自一九七六年迄今係以肯定說的見解為通說，而我國司法院大法官四一四號解釋亦採取肯定說的見解。其次，對於加諸於網路律師廣告的嚴格管制，已有美國律師批評這些管制為「未獲授權的侵害」（unwarranted intrusion），且違反美國憲法增補條款第一條所保障的言論自由權。但亦有人認為此類管制可保護大眾免於受到律師對於「可能的客戶進行的不道德訴訟挑攬」（unscrupulous solicitation of prospective clients）的行為。再者，對於電子廣告郵件的管制，本文預測，美國聯邦貿易委員會未來規範未經請求的商業電子郵件時，將能夠一方面減少詐欺性電子廣告郵件以保護消費者，另一方面又能兼顧言論自由之保障。

　　　　　The U.S. Federal Supreme Court held since 1976 that commercial speech, better known as commercial advertising, enjoys constitutional protection, while ROC Council of Grand Justices in its 414th interpretation also granted similar protection to the new category of speech. In dealing with the overbroad regulations on the lawyer advertising on the Internet, some lawyers in the U.S. view them as unwarranted intrusion, which constitutes a violation of freedom of speech, though some others believe such laws are capable of preventing prospective clients from sustaining unscrupulous solicitation. As to the strict regulations on E-mail advertisement, the article predicts that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission would eventually discover the methods which could both eliminate cheating commercial E-mails and protect freedom of speech.