Jump to full article: Bloomberg News, 2001-04-23
Author: Greg Stohr
Intro: The signs touting Parliament Lights and Virginia Slims are among the first things a visitor sees upon entering the Father & Son Market in Brighton, Massachusetts, just down the street from the local high school.
Those cigarette signs, and thousands like them across the state, are under fire from state officials. New Massachusetts regulations would bar tobacco ads within 1,000 feet of a school or playground and are either visible from the street or set at children's eye level.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear arguments from Philip Morris Cos., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc. and other tobacco companies seeking to invalidate the rules. Advertisers and convenience stores have joined the fight, hoping for a decision that will stem efforts around the country to put new limits on tobacco promotions.
``If they uphold the rules, it's going to embolden cities and states around the country to pursue all kinds of advertising restrictions,'' said Richard Kaplar, vice president of the communications industry-sponsored Media Institute, which opposes most ad limits. . .
A decision is due by June. . .
The companies say the 1965 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act bars state advertising restrictions beyond the warning labels and broadcast ban required under the federal law. The law says that no requirements ``based on smoking and health shall be imposed under state law with respect to the advertising or promotion'' of properly labeled cigarettes. . .
Tobacco companies also cite the constitutional guarantee of free expression, asking the high court to extend a series of recent rulings enhancing commercial speech rights.
``Some people are seeing this as an ideal vehicle for the court to substantially strengthen protections for commercial speech,'' said David L. Hudson Jr., an attorney with the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University.
Jump to full article » |