The appearance of the XRP cryptocurrency logo on the uniforms of the University of Kansas sports teams, the Kansas Jayhawks, has sparked a fierce legal debate on social media.
Amid calls to completely ban the promotion of digital assets among students, Ripple CTO Emeritus David Schwartz explained why any attempt to block such advertising would be impossible under the U.S. Constitution.
The dispute was triggered by the announcement of a historic partnership between the university's athletic department and Ripple. For Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse, an alumnus of the university, the deal was a personal milestone.
However, online critics reacted harshly to the integration, arguing that cryptocurrency advertising in sports should be banned alongside gambling, tobacco, and alcohol promotions.
How David Schwartz used the First Amendment to defend sports ads
Schwartz quickly countered this by pointing out that in the West, governments do not typically ban legal commerce ads on campuses, highlighting a critical legal distinction — if a product is lawful to sell, it is constitutionally lawful to promote.
Rather than engaging in the usual arguments about technology, David Schwartz responded by citing the U.S. Constitution. He noted that the First Amendment protects freedom of commercial speech.
"The government cannot suppress truthful commercial speech merely because it possesses greater powers to regulate things other than speech, nor to prevent the public from making bad, but lawful, decisions," Schwartz emphasized.
To support his argument, he cited landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases, including 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island, which concerned restrictions on alcohol advertising, and Greater New Orleans Broadcasting v. United States, which addressed casino advertising.
According to Schwartz's reasoning, if XRP is legal, any attempt to block its advertising without compelling constitutional grounds would amount to direct censorship. As long as XRP is officially recognized as a commodity, any effort to restrict its promotion could be viewed by the courts as a violation of freedom of speech.
