Bong Hits for Budweiser - Or, How the Roberts Court Accidently Killed Big Tobacco and Alcohol

The Supreme Court's ruling against Joseph Frederick has the potential to kill alcohol and tobacco advertising.

In ruling that ".. schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use", the Court opens the door for parents of underage children to sue television and print advertises touting booze and cigs.

To a ten year old, to a seventeen year old, alcohol and tobacco are illegal drugs. Parents have been handed a powerful weapon for protecting their children from the dangers of smoking and drinking.

Since one cannot simply "turn off" a bilboard, or a magazine, a sign painted on a city bus, or a television playing in a public venue, children are exposed, against their parents wishes, to billion dollar campaigns directed to one purpose: to encouraging illegal drug use (illegal for those underage).

Thank your Mr. Roberts, Mr. Scalia, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Alito, and Mr. Kennedy for reiging in the free speech of two of the Merchants of Death.

It's all about big business. Bong hits bad. Tobacco and alcohol good. Simple, see?

spouting off and called it a narrow ruling that "should not be read more broadly." They're already having to play defense.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070625/scotus-bong-hits/

I'm 63, and I get so damn sick and tired of seeing some stupid cure for everything you can every possibly have. "JUST ASK YOUR DOCTOR!"

Oh how I dream of the days when they weren't allowed to do public advertising and the worst the public had to deal with was Asprin and Anacin!

giving the "oily discharge" side effects make my skin crawl!

why didn't you question your doctor's advice?

They want to put all the blame for medical malpractice on your shoulders.

Someone will try this tactic. The alcohol or tabacco industry will sue. It will go up through the courts. The'll come to a contradictory ruling that favors big business.

They don't give a damn about consistency. They just want to limit citizens and free big business.

with helping corporatewhorehogs, either.

This is great! I was worried about the SCOTUS under Roberts and Alito, but now I see that they are true humanitarians looking out for the little guy! Now we know our justice system is in capable hands!

:sarcasm:

That is an excellent observation. Now if some parent will just go spray paint a beer billboard or something, we'll be off and running ! :-)

:shrug:

Not my place to tell them to smoke or not.

especially if the tobacco & alcohol companies are donating to Republican candiates...

I wonder if that banner would have said "Jesus loves Bud Light" would they have ruled the same way?...

Some people equate bongs=hippies=liberal, whereas a beer company is big corporation=big Republican donors?..

Maybe it's a stretch, but with the five deplorable righties on the Supreme Court, anything is possible..

with speech by non-students or speech outside of school-sanctioned events.

The ruling means that schools can likely ban t-shirts, etc., with alcohol/tobacco advertising on them, but I suspect many/most schools already do ...

I read once that schools get only about 7% of their funding from the government. Pesonally, I think that 7% has waaaaay too many strings :)

Who, precisely, was that banner supposed to be inciting to smoke weed? 1st Century Rabbis? Messiahs? Deities? Biblical Characters?

:rofl:

Any ambitious lawyers out there?

Tobacco advertising has been illegal for a while in Canada, and the Tobacoo Industry didn't go anywhere.

They were giving out cigarettes at Bonnarro this year.

I'm fairly certain that goes against tobacco control laws, and in some provinces like Ontario and Québec you can't even smoke in night clubs, let alone give tobacco away.

Your argument makes a logical leap unsupported by the decision, which I can only assume you haven't bothered to read. First, the case involved a school setting, not kids sitting at home. Second, it involved a restriction on speech by kids directed to kids. Not speech by adults directed to the population at large. The case decided and the case you postulate are simply not comparable. Indeed, a majority of the court didn't even buy into the broad interpretation offered by Roberts, Scalia,and Thomas. Kennedy and Alito wrote a separate opinion expressly stating the very narrow grounds on which they were ruling and their differences with the broader approach urged by the other three. That's 6-3 against a broader interpretation and even that broad interpretation wouldn't reach the scenario you postulate.

Finally, even if there was any merit to the OP's "analysis" of what the court actually held, it falls far short of creating a legal right of action in parents in the absence of any law. Now, if Congress passed a complete ban on advertising of alcohol or tobacco products, would it be sustained? I doubt it, and don't see anything in this ruling that would require such an outcome. But even assuming that this court would stretch the reasoning of the Bong Hits case to sustain a ban on all commercial speech involving tobacco/alcohol, that fact doesn't mean that in the absence of such a ban parents or individuals have any legal grounds for suing anyone for such advertising. Pass a ban, violate the ban, get sued. No ban, no basis for a suit.

and this thought popped into my head.

I'm not a lawyer. I'm a programmer. I have not read the entire transcripts.

What will their corporate masters say?

leads you to believe that the reach of this ruling would leave the school and extend to parents?

The "Court" already have protected substances illegal for minors...and now they have rules against individual speech. If the young man was advertising "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" t-shirts with that banner his rights would of been protected.

So I say to that young man...make a t-shirt design, sell the shirts on a website and advertise them with another banner...with the appropriate disclaimer: This phrase is meant for entertainment and humor purposes for adults only and does not encourage the use of illegal drugs by Jesus or anyone else.

As an adult passing by I would like my rights to be preserved to be offered "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" t-shirts.

Does that sound effed up? Of course it does. Clearly commercial interests outwiegh those of individual expression. Dammit I should of argued this case.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/casesummary.aspx?case=Lorillard_Tobacco_v_Reilly

Case Summary for Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly

Argued: April 25, 2001
Decided: June 28, 2001
Issue: Whether Massachusetts' regulations limiting the advertising of tobacco products within 1,000 feet of playgrounds, parks and schools violates the commercial free-speech rights of the tobacco companies.

Preemption Issue — Whether the state regulations on tobacco advertising are preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.
Answer: The court determined 5-4 that the state restrictions on cigarette ads were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act.

Because cigars and smokeless tobacco products are not covered by the cigarette-labeling act, the Court proceeded to the First Amendment question. All nine justices determined that there were constitutional problems with the 1,000 ft. ban. Five justices ruled the ban was flatly unconstitutional. Four justices would have sent the 1,000 ft. advertising issue back to the trial court for development of more facts.
Decisions Below: The opinions of the federal district court are located at Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 76 F.Supp. 2d 124 (D. Mass. 1999) and Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 84 F.Supp. 2d 180 (D. Mass. 2000). The opinion of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is located at Consolidated Cigar Corp. v. Reilly, 218 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2000).
Facts:

In January 1999, the Massachusetts attorney general implements regulations limiting tobacco advertising. A key provision limits outdoor tobacco advertising within 1,000 feet of any public playground, playground in public parks and any secondary or elementary school. Another provision prohibits "point of sale advertising" within 1,000 feet of playgrounds or schools. The law defines point of sale advertising to include advertising placed lower than five feet in any store accessible to minors.

In May 1999, several tobacco companies challenge the constitutionality of the regulations on preemption and First Amendment grounds. With respect to the First Amendment argument, the companies argue that the restrictions are too broad and violate their rights to engage in commercial speech.

After a federal district court rejects the companies' preemption and the vast majority of its First Amendment claims, the companies appeal to the 1st Circuit.

The 1st Circuit also rules in favor of nearly all the regulations, including the 1,000 foot ban.

The 1st Circuit wrote: "although the geographical scope of the advertising restrictions is substantial, we do not find the restrictions equivalent to a 'blanket ban' on speech."
Petitioner's Principles: Regulations on truthful and nonmisleading commercial speech are constitutional if the government: (1) has a substantial interest for its regulation; (2) the regulation advances the governmental interest in a direct and material way; and (3) the regulation is narrowly drawn. Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (1980).

Governmental interests in protecting minors from harmful speech do not justify a wholesale suppression of the free-speech rights of adults. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
Legal Basis: The 1,000 ft-regulation violates the final prong of the Central Hudson test because it sweeps far too broadly. "The uniformly broad sweep of the geographical limitation demonstrates a lack of tailoring," the Court wrote. Even though the state has a substantial interest in protecting minors from tobacco usage, tobacco manufacturers and adult consumers have a First Amendment right to receive information about lawful products.
Majority: O'Connor (Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas)
Concur: Kennedy and Thomas
Partial Dissent: Stevens (joined by Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer)
Quotable: As the State protects children from tobacco advertisements, tobacco manufacturers and retailers and their adult consumers still have a protected interest in communication. (O'Connor) My continuing concerns that the test gives insufficient protection to truthful, nonmisleading commercial speech require me to refrain from expressing agreement with the Court's application of the third part of Central Hudson. (Kennedy)

I have observed previously that there is 'no philosophical or historical basis for asserting that 'commercial' speech is of lower value' than 'noncommercial speech.' Indeed, I doubt whether it is even possible to draw a coherent distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech. (Thomas)

Nevertheless noble ends do not save a speech restricting statute whose means are poorly tailored. (Stevens)