ThomasMore
06-28-2001, 11:14 PM
Massachusetts' state laws restricting tobacco advertising were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court today both for violating the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and for violating federal pre-emption (which means areas of law where the federal law takes priority over, and prohibits state regulation).
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Massachusetts is only one of a number states and local jurisdictions that have enacted "diverse and increasingly severe limitations on public display of tobacco advertisements,".... The restrictions even limit the display of such ads inside stores...
While the regulations were pending, the state and 45 others settled their massive lawsuit against the four major tobacco companies. The companies agreed to pay the states more than $220 billion over 25 years.
In addition, the settlement with the states included restrictions on outdoor advertising, ads in stadiums, shopping malls and video arcades....
Despite those agreements, Massachusetts went forward with its own proposed regulations that added still more restrictions, the petition from the tobacco companies complained.
The Massachusetts ban "effectively eliminates the use of outdoor advertising to provide truthful brand, availability, price and other information to adult consumers" and "expressly prohibits" outdoor ads of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco within 1,000 feet of any public playground, play area in a public park, elementary school or secondary school....
The zones included in the ban were "so extensive" that they include "virtually the entire populated area of Massachusetts," the tobacco companies contended....
Justices David Souter and John Paul Stevens filed separate opinions dissenting in part.
Souter said he would ask "for trial on the constitutionality of the 1,000-foot limit."
Stevens said, "I strongly disagree" with the majority's conclusion that the federal law pre-empts state regulations on "the location of advertising." He said he would have sent the case back down for trial on whether Massachusetts had legitimate compelling interests in placing the restrictions on tobacco, but did not believe the restrictions violated the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech.
Stevens was joined by fellow liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and joined in part by Souter.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
To see the entire story, link to: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/28/163947.shtml
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Massachusetts is only one of a number states and local jurisdictions that have enacted "diverse and increasingly severe limitations on public display of tobacco advertisements,".... The restrictions even limit the display of such ads inside stores...
While the regulations were pending, the state and 45 others settled their massive lawsuit against the four major tobacco companies. The companies agreed to pay the states more than $220 billion over 25 years.
In addition, the settlement with the states included restrictions on outdoor advertising, ads in stadiums, shopping malls and video arcades....
Despite those agreements, Massachusetts went forward with its own proposed regulations that added still more restrictions, the petition from the tobacco companies complained.
The Massachusetts ban "effectively eliminates the use of outdoor advertising to provide truthful brand, availability, price and other information to adult consumers" and "expressly prohibits" outdoor ads of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco within 1,000 feet of any public playground, play area in a public park, elementary school or secondary school....
The zones included in the ban were "so extensive" that they include "virtually the entire populated area of Massachusetts," the tobacco companies contended....
Justices David Souter and John Paul Stevens filed separate opinions dissenting in part.
Souter said he would ask "for trial on the constitutionality of the 1,000-foot limit."
Stevens said, "I strongly disagree" with the majority's conclusion that the federal law pre-empts state regulations on "the location of advertising." He said he would have sent the case back down for trial on whether Massachusetts had legitimate compelling interests in placing the restrictions on tobacco, but did not believe the restrictions violated the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech.
Stevens was joined by fellow liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and joined in part by Souter.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
To see the entire story, link to: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/28/163947.shtml