Mike Godwin writes:
"labeling for an unlawful medical device" -- the Orgone Accumulator. Likewise FDA seizures of Scientolgy literature in the '60s as "labeling for an unlawful medical device" -- E-meters. Then there are the moves against vitamin literature in recent FDA raids. I don't think the courts have ever faced the specific issue of regulatory censorship.
These cases are pre-Brandenburg v. Ohio. In Brandenburg, the Supreme Court held that mere advocacy of illegal conduct is Constitutionally protected.
But the Court has upheld various police-power suppressions of advertising material, etc., even after Brandenburg (1969, right?) under the "commercial speech" exception, like Pittsburgh Press v Human Relations Comm. 413 U.S. 376 (1973). [Glommed from my 1979 Con Law textbook.] This is a doctrine that commercial expression is less Constitutionally protected than political and literary expression for historical and public policy reasons. I don't know what the present state of the commercial speech exception is, but it has definitely been a nasty stain on First Amendment jurisprudence since Valentine v Chrestensen in 1942. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@net.bio.net / mcb@postmodern.com