{"id":733,"date":"2015-07-09T13:02:06","date_gmt":"2015-07-09T13:02:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/?page_id=733"},"modified":"2021-01-02T16:26:52","modified_gmt":"2021-01-02T16:26:52","slug":"specialadregsliquor","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/specialadregsliquor\/","title":{"rendered":"Special ad regulations: liquor"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the past two decades, court decisions reflect a trend towards more protection of commercial speech and less regulation. This was clearly illustrated by several liquor advertising cases, especially Rubin v. Coors and 44 Liquormart v. RI.<\/span><\/p>\n

** Rubin v. Coors<\/a> <\/strong>1995 \u2014 Coors was advertising the alcohol content of its beers and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms did not approve, fearing that once consumers knew which brands had higher alcohol content it would lead to market competition for high alcohol beers and more intoxication among the public. But the Court said advertising that discloses only truthful information can\u2019t be prohibitied.<\/span><\/p>\n

** 44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island<\/a> <\/strong>517 U.S. 484 1996 \u2014 In this case, a business wanted to advertise its liquor prices and the state of Rhode Island said it couldn\u2019t. The Supreme Court disagreed. One justice, Clarence Thomas, said that if an activity is legal it is not constitutional to \u201ckeep people in the dark for what the government perceives to be their own good.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

An 1886 French alcohol ad.<\/p><\/div>\n

Voluntary restraints<\/span> for liquor advertising on radio and TV were in place between 1936 and 1996 <\/strong>through the Distilled Spirits Council. (Distilled spirits are also known as “hard liquor” — rum, whiskey, vodka, etc. Wine and beer ads were common on radio and TV.). \u00a0 <\/span><\/p>\n

After courts gave distilled spirits the green light in Rubin and 44 Liquormart cases,\u00a0 the Distilled Spirits Council decided to end voluntary restrictions. In the ensuing controversy, the Clinton administration unsuccessfully asked Congress to authorize the FTC to regulate liquor advertising, and FTC\u00a0 Commissioner Roscoe B. StarekStarek said: \u201cAlcohol advertising poses difficult First Amendment issues because this advertising concerns behavior that is legal when directed to adults\u201d but which would likely harm\u00a0 children.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cSince the [ban was broken in 1996] expenditures for alcohol advertising have increased dramatically, even though liquor commercials were mainly found only on cable channels. However, in the winter of 2002 the first major network, NBC, indicated that it would start accepting hard liquor advertisements on shows airing after 9 P.M.. In a poll conducted by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (2001, December) 68% of the respondents opposed NBC\u2019s change of policy and 70% agreed that it was dangerous to have liquor ads on television because young people will be exposed to liquor. Heeding public pressure, NBC cancelled its plans in March, 2002.\u00a0 \u00a0 \u2014 MediaWise<\/a> Facts and Tips<\/span><\/p>\n

** <\/a>Educational Media Co. at Virginia Tech\u00a0 v Insley (Va ABC)<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong> \u2014 \u00a0The federal Fourth District Court originally upheld a ban on advertising of alcohol in independent student media, but later overturned the decision on Constitutional grounds.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/h3>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the past two decades, court decisions reflect a trend towards more protection of commercial speech and less regulation. This was clearly illustrated by several liquor advertising cases, especially Rubin v. Coors and 44 Liquormart v. RI. ** Rubin v. … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"full-width-page.php","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-733","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/733","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=733"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/733\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3590,"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/733\/revisions\/3590"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revolutionsincommunication.com\/law\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=733"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}