This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2015, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Government attempts to regulate speech can be illegal and usually stir up controversy.
But the Utah Tax Commission is about to impose a rule on car-dealer ads that takes a new twist: regulating the speed of speech.
"We're not regulating what they say, only how fast they say it," says Lynn Solarczyk, the commission's director of government affairs.
The proposed new rule is up for commission approval Thursday. It states: "The speed of the words spoken in any verbal advertisement must be constant throughout the advertisement."
Tax Commissioner Rebecca Rockwell says the draft rule is aimed at radio and TV spots in which the narrator's voice kicks into overdrive speed near the end, often giving details of financing or other specifics, "and it may be difficult for individuals to understand because of the rapidity."
The new regulation is comparable, Rockwell says, to an existing rule on fine print in car ads. That rule requires that the fine print at the bottom of a written ad be at least as big as the smallest typeface in the body of the ad.
"The point," she says, "is to be intelligible by someone either reading or listening to it."
Rockwell, who is also an attorney, didn't directly answer whether there are First Amendment concerns with these rules. Instead, she pointed to a state law that bars any dealer licensed by the state from publishing, displaying or circulating advertising that is "misleading, inaccurate" or "misrepresents" a product.
Violating that statute is a class B misdemeanor, subject to a six-month jail sentence, $1,000 fine and a civil penalty of $100 for a first offense. (That's the same sanction for breaking a state law prohibiting motor-vehicle sales on a consecutive Saturday and Sunday.)
Rockwell says the penalty imposed under a constant-speed-ad violation would be up to the state Motor Vehicle Enforcement Division and "would be very fact-specific." The Tax Commission would get involved, she says, only if an enforcement action was appealed.
Neither Rockwell nor Solarczyk could say whether there have been consumer complaints about fast-talking ads, noting only that the rule against such spots was proposed by the division.
The proposed regulation has been vetted with industry representatives through an advisory board, Rockwell says, adding that her impression is that they are OK with it, although she didn't want to speak for them.
And while it seems reasonable the industry might push back on such regulation of commercial speech rights, spokesmen for car dealers say otherwise.
"We're supportive of this," says Craig Bickmore, executive director of the New Car Dealers of Utah. "It's good for the industry and just being consistent throughout the ad. That's really good."
Bickmore says some sellers do employ the fast-talking tactic at the end of ads, "but I don't think it's widespread."
Wayne Jones, who represents the Used Car Dealers of Utah, also says his industry has no objections to the rule.
Andrew McCullough is a Salt Lake City attorney with some expertise in free-speech issues. As a Libertarian whose law-practice clients include escort services and exotic dancers, McCullough has fought a lot of battles over government attempts to regulate speech.
The lawyer says the attempt to regulate the speed of car-ad narration is misguided but not necessarily illegal.
"I would say somebody is overzealous," McCullough says, "and is probably trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist."
The rule could face a legal challenge if it made it difficult or impossible to cram all the government-mandated disclosures "and gobbledygook" required of a car ad into a 30-second spot. That, McCullough says, could lead to longer ads and a scarcity of available airtime that someone could argue amounted to suppressing free speech.
But even if there's not a constitutional issue, McCullough says, the proposed rule is a clear violation of common sense.
"As a free-speech lover, I would say, if it's silly and it's onerous, you shouldn't do it; and this is both of those things.
"But," McCullough adds, "I'd really rather talk about advertising topless dancers."