a.    Disagrees with the majority’s approach, but not the result
since he is against the ban).  Blackmun disagrees with the approach
because he says the four-part test would not provide adequate
protection for truthful, non-misleading, non-coercive commercial
speech.
b.    The problem with the four-part test is that if there is a
“direct link” between promotional ads and energy consumption (as the
Court has found in this case), and the prohibiting that ad is narrow
enough (which the Court did not find here, but made suggestions of
how to narrow the ban), then the ad can be banned.  Why?  Because the
maj. erroneously claims that ads, reporting truthful info., will
increase the consumption of electricity because the audience will
find them persuasive.  But these ads, if banned, would deprive
consumers of valuable info. about products or services.  Thus, the
maj. would uphold a ban of promotional ads on air conditioners, as
long as the ban met the four-part test above, even though the info.
in that promotional ad was truthful and even though the ad would
provide valuable info. to customers.  This is wrong.  Ads should not
be banned unless there are time, place, manner restrictions, or there
is deception, misinfo., etc. in ads.
1.    Obviously, Brennan prefers the Virginia Pharmacy approach,
with its rationale, to the majority’s approach in Central Hudson.
2.    The Blackmun-Brennan concurrence as basically adopted in the
majority’s approach in Liquormart (see below).