複雜的秩序中，個人與社會整體及個人之間的利益衝突已然白熱化，法律若要居間調和，抑或身為人為秩序以建立自發秩序的規則，不應僅憑靠操縱或控制社會成員的方法為手段，而是需深刻思考以間接的方式，對於有助益於形成秩序者予以實施和改進。法係以規律利益為其內容，包括足以滿足人類價值感情之一切因素，不論物質或經濟的，判斷上以該因素具有客觀實在價值及人類固有自立的、自然本性的生命原理。廣告之商業活動，涉及財產之性質為主要，在社會普遍利益的價值觀念上，其關呼表達思想對社會之普遍利益，因其技術與平台的限制，功利地分配受眾之注意力資源似乎還是主要的作用，分倚著傳訊者與受訊者的角度，在促進獨立思考與取得資訊的利益上亦僅僅於某種程度的實現。透過現代網路等媒體平台，技術性的、低成本的及即時性等破除時空限制的傳播，反饋意見的做成理論上應是較為容易。使用者不僅觀察同時亦存在於網路世界。科技增加了網路使用者的權力，同樣的，科技亦能限制、干擾或預設人們使用如此技術平台的範疇、時機。在考量管制廣告活動上常為思考重點之商業言論自由，因應科學之發展，依循廣告表達思想對社會之普遍利益，有效分配社會資源，包括立法、司法與行政，健全發揮法律、非法律機制。同時，並給予個人機會和動因，使所有個人在特定時空條件下的知識與理性得以最大限度的利用，實踐以法律體系為一種社會事實，對其人類生活於其間的自然環境和社會環境作成調適，並使其於持續互動的過程中得到心智的發展。

　　The free flow of information is championed as a fundamental value. Regarding the free speech critique, the Article discusses the value of commercial speech, the regulation and socialization of it. Generally speaking, speech of private interest is less valuable than speech of public interest. The difficulty, however, is distinguishing between them. Traditional approaches include deferring to the media, distinguishing between public and private figures, and looking to the nature of the information communicated. However, these approaches may ignore the meaning of wrong behavior. Instead, we should focus on the relationships in which information is transferred and the uses to which information is put. The propriety of information not only depends upon their purpose, but upon the debate of correct-or-wrong ideas. The Article analyze to the advertising regulation, in which certain information is admissible for some purposes but not others and then examines the values of free speech and argues the principle of liability in current law.