See id. at 1002. Moreover, if the speech is classified as commercial speech, it is not actionable “when the plaintiffs identity is used, without consent, to promote an unrelated product.” Gionfriddo v. Major League Baseball, 94 Cal.App.4th 400, 413, 114 Cal.Rptr.2d 307 (2001); Hoffman, 255 F.3d at 1185 (noting that when a defendant uses “an aspect of the celebrity’s identity entirely and directly for the purpose of selling a product,” such use does not “implicate the First Amendment’s protection of expressions of editorial opinion”). a. Commercial Speech Defendant argues that the Publication is noncommercial speech that deserves the full protection of the First Amendment. (Def.’s Mem. at 10-11.) Specifically, defendant contends it is undisputed that the Publication does not prop 2d 639 (<HOLDING>). Informational publications that refer to or
holding that relatively contemporaneous reprinting of poster of football player that appeared in newspaper article about super bowl victory received full protection under the first amendment holding that an equal protection claim was no more than a first amendment claim dressed in equal protection clothing and was thus subsumed by and coextensive with the first amendment claim recognizing him from the newspaper picture and article of the night before holding that students reporting of sexual hazing was entitled to first amendment protection and school officials were not entitled to qualified immunity when they punished him by throwing him off the football team recognizing first amendment protection for news gathering