The tobacco industry has taken some hard hits in recent years, but the U.S. Supreme Court's decision this week to hear a case involving tobacco advertising could result in more than just tobacco regulation.

The highest court in the nation agreed Monday to take the Massachusetts case involving the state Attorney General Thomas Reilly's ban of all outdoor tobacco ads within 1,000 feet of any elementary or secondary school or playground. After the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston ruled in July in favor of Reilly's regulations, the tobacco companies fought back — and with good reason.

First of all, the case is fundamentally about the companies' constitutional right to engage in truthful commercial speech, as protected by the First Amendment. Although commercial speech receives somewhat less protection than political speech, the government, nevertheless, should not restrain advertising that is factually true.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1996 conveyed that exact message in Liquormart Inc. v. Rhode Island. The Court struck down a 1956 Rhode Island law restricting the advertisement of liquor prices.

Justice John Stevens, who delivered the majority opinion, wrote: "When a State entirely prohibits the dissemination of truthful, nonmisleading commercial messages for reasons unrelated to the preservation of a fair bargaining process, there is far less reason to depart from the rigorous review that the First Amendment generally demands."

Second, Reilly's concern that the advertising targets children does not warrant such a ban, because specific measures, such as the elimination of Joe Camel, have already been taken to shield children. Additional measures are unnecessary and beg the question: When will it end? In other words, are we seeing the beginnings of a slippery slope toward the government's censorship of commercial speech?

Although Massachusetts has claimed its right to ban the ads because it has, like all states, a substantial interest in protecting public health, it does not negate the fact that the attorney general has used his position to infringe upon a fundamental right.

The case before the Supreme Court has less to do with tobacco than it does with free speech. If the Court follows its own precedent, commercial speech will remain under the protection of the law.