(FORTUNE Magazine) – Commercial free speech is on a roll. Suddenly getting respect in the Supreme Court, it has won two big ones this spring. The Supremes held by six to three that Cincinnati had no right to bar commercial fliers from newsracks on local streets. Then they voted eight to one that Florida could not prevent CPAs from making pitches to prospective clients. Commercial speech still lacks the protection afforded political speech, but it is suddenly clear that CS too is covered by the First Amendment. It is now established that efforts to bar CS will be examined skeptically by the courts, using at least an ''intermediate scrutiny'' standard. That phrase tells us government cannot pass laws barring advertisements or other commercial propositions unless they pass this test: The law must advance a ''substantial'' government interest, and the restrictions on speech may not go beyond the need to advance that interest. In both cases Brother Harry Blackmun wrote concurring opinions implying that he wants more than intermediate scrutiny. He craves ''strict scrutiny,'' requiring not just a substantial but a ''compelling'' government interest. The law professors we have been reading doubt he will get his way and suggest that business did far better than anyone expected in getting up to ''substantial.'' The new standards are already influencing other cases. Citing the Cincinnati decision, a federal district court has held that Hornell Brewing Co. has a First Amendment right to use the Crazy Horse label. After grumbles about affronts to Indians, Congress had attached a rider to an appropriations bill forbidding use of that name. The judge found no substantial government interest in this maneuver and threw out the law. When CS beats PC (political correctness), you know it is in the big leagues.