Hoki, Hoki, Happy, Hour
---
Just a quick pass-long so Tony doesn't get upset with me:
Also irrelevant is the notion that bars or breweries have no "need" to advertise (e.g., via college publications or websites). Such arrogant micromanaging conveniently blanks out the fact that there are students (or graduate students or employees or whoever) who are over 21, not to mention the lack of any evidence whatsoever to suggest that advertising a happy hour "worsens" alcohol abuse, intoxication-catalyzed crime or injury, or any other purported "social harm." (And even if it did, so what? The First Amendment ought not yield so impotently to dubious alcohol-related "externalities" any more than it ought yield to dubious pornography-related "externalities.")
The case is Educational Media Company v. Swecker, No. 3:06CV396 (E.D. Va., March 31, 2008) (PDF - 36 pages)
A federal magistrate has overturned Virginia's decades-old ban on alcohol-related advertising in college newspapers, saying that the law violates the student publications' constitutional right to free speech.My long-standing view is unchanged: Truthful commercial advertising should enjoy full First Amendment protection on a par with political speech. The fact that these are college media outlets is utterly irrelevant.
U.S. Magistrate Judge M. Hannah Lauck sided with the student newspapers at the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech, which said the restrictions on alcohol references -- including phrases such as "happy hour" -- in print and online media hampered their ability to make money because they've had to turn down potential advertisers.
Also irrelevant is the notion that bars or breweries have no "need" to advertise (e.g., via college publications or websites). Such arrogant micromanaging conveniently blanks out the fact that there are students (or graduate students or employees or whoever) who are over 21, not to mention the lack of any evidence whatsoever to suggest that advertising a happy hour "worsens" alcohol abuse, intoxication-catalyzed crime or injury, or any other purported "social harm." (And even if it did, so what? The First Amendment ought not yield so impotently to dubious alcohol-related "externalities" any more than it ought yield to dubious pornography-related "externalities.")
The case is Educational Media Company v. Swecker, No. 3:06CV396 (E.D. Va., March 31, 2008) (PDF - 36 pages)
Related Posts (on one page):
Posted by Kip on
3 April 2008
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.