College Alcoholic Advertisements.
The actual article off of CNN is quite long, and brings up very good points supporting the ruling, So I will let you guys read that at your leisure.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/07....ap/index.html
Quote:
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- A Pennsylvania law banning paid advertisements for alcohol in college newspapers is unconstitutional, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.
A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the 1996 law, which was intended to combat underage drinking, placed an unfair financial burden on student-run publications and hindered their right to free speech while doing little to achieve its goal.
The law was challenged by The Pitt News, a student-run paper at the University of Pittsburgh.
In a 17-page opinion, Judge Samuel Alito said the state faces a heavy burden anytime it tries to restrict speech, but had offered only "speculation" and "conjecture" to support its contention that the ad ban would slacken the demand for alcohol by underage Pitt students
This is another example of our court system creating law from the bench. Essentially what we have here is; a law was created by the state legislators, if the constituents disagree with the law then the law should be removed by electing different legislators and not by a court ruling on free speech.
Free speech is defined by dictionary.com as:
"The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government."
The legislature has not suppressed anyone's ability to express their opinion in public. The legislature decided that allowing alcholic beverage advertising in college newspapers promoted underage drinking on campus, and thus created a law to address the issue. This is not a free speech issue, this is an issue of legislation that should be decided by the constituents. The court system is supposed to interpret the law only, and the law said no to alcoholic beverage advertisements on college campuses period.
Now, all of the college newspapers in the state had to follow the rules, so there was also no issue of "unfair financial burdens." These editors were simply to lazy to get up off their rumps and go find new sponsors.
