In 1996, the Pennsylvania Legislature enacted an amendment to the state Liquor Code that is popularly known as “Act 199.” A provision of this amendment, prohibits “any advertising of alcoholic beverages” in virtually any medium of mass communication that is affiliated with “any educational institution,” including a college or university. The Pitt News is a certified student organization at the University of Pittsburgh. The University has more than 25,000 students, at least two-thirds of whom are old enough to drink under Pennsylvania law. Overall, more than 75% of the total University population (students, faculty, and staff) is more than 21 years of age. The Pitt News was created by the University Board of Trustees “in recognition of the constitutional right of students to freedom of speech.” The …show more content…
paper represents independent student speech, not official speech disseminated on behalf of the University. The Pitt News is distributed free of charge at multiple locations thought the 132-acre urban campus setting. The Pitt News racks are almost always grouped together with other free weekly periodicals that are targeted at the university population, including The City Paper. The City Paper is not affiliated with an educational institution, and contains alcoholic beverage advertisements.
All of The Pitt News’ revenue is derived from advertising. Act 199 applied to any "publication published by, for or in behalf of any educational institution". It broadly covered publication "through the medium of radio broadcast, television broadcast, newspapers, periodicals or other publication, outdoor advertisement, any form of electronic transmission or any other printed or graphic matter, including booklets, flyers or cards, or on the product label or attachment itself." The Pitt News filed a First Amendment challenge against Gerald Pappert, who was the Attorney General of the state of Pennsylvania, and other state officials. The US District Court of appeals applied the Central Hudson test and held that the statute is unconstitutional. The Court summarized this test, quoting from Central Hudson: "First, ``we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment, ´´ and this means that “it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. ´´ ... Second, ``we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. ´´
... If the first and second ``inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest. ´´" The Court held that under the first prong, the expression is protected by the First Amendment. Second, it wrote that "preventing underage drinking and alcohol abuse" are substantial governmental interests under the second prong. However, the Court held, in applying the third prong, that the state has not shown that its statute alleviates the harm. The Court explained that "We do not dispute the proposition that alcoholic beverage advertising in general tends to encourage consumption". But, it continued that the prohibition "applies only to advertising in a very narrow sector of the media, and the Commonwealth has not pointed to any evidence that eliminating ads in this narrow sector will do any good." The Court specifically voiced concerns raised by statutes that target some but not all media, suggesting that "courts must be wary” and ended up finding that Act 199 impermissibly targets a narrow segment of the media. he Court did write that "laws that impose special financial burdens on the media or a narrow sector of the media present a threat to the First Amendment." It added that "laws that impose financial burdens on a broad class of entities, including the media, do not violate the First Amendment", but, that "A business in the communications field cannot escape its obligation to comply with generally applicable laws on the ground that the cost of compliance would be prohibitive." The Court also held that the statute fails to meet the fourth prong of the Central Hudson test; there is not a reasonable fit between the legislature's ends and the means utilized to accomplish those ends.
In the majority opinion, Justice White wrote “Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were” The court also noted that the paper was a sponsored newspaper by the school which was not intended to be seen by the public, but rather for journalism students to write articles based off of the requirements for journalism 2 class, and all subjects must be appropriate for the school and all its
American Civil Liberties Union discovered the law, they put out a press release requesting the cooperation of a Tennessee teacher in a “friendly test case” of the law (DeCamp 8). Dayton resident George Rappleyea and some friends came up with the idea to have the case in Dayton and decided to ask John Scopes to be the teacher to test the law.
After being fired Pickering sued the board of education for the right of free speech granted by the first Amendment and the right to equal protection meaning that he has the right to express himself publicly if he wishes and he has the same rights as everybody else in any conditions. Even though he had the right to free speech, the lower court concluded that as a public employe he has to to abstain himself from making comments about the school. Pickering then protected himself using the 14th Amendment by saying that he is allowed the same rights as everybody (equal rights) under any condition.
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc., 2009. Tinker V. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Web. 28 Oct. 2013. .
Scrivo, K. (1998, March 20). Drinking on campus. CQ Researcher, 8, 241-264. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/
Simones, A. (1995). Lecture on FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. October 27, 1995. Constitutional Law, Southwest Missouri State University.
William Pitt was a British statesman of the Whig group during the 18th century. In his speech Defence of the American Colonies he is on the side of the American Colonists that claim the Stamp Act is a violation of their rights. During his speech to British parliament he states that the Stamp Act is not needed to collect money to pay for America's protection. That America already indirectly makes payments for this protection. Making millions for the Motherland and more money could be made if the economy of the colonies was changed in their favor. But he doesn't agree with the colonists with the rebellion thing.But does think that the rights of the Americans were being violated. He thinks that Britain has the right to govern her colones and
Imagine a time when one could be fined, imprisoned and even killed for simply speaking one’s mind. Speech is the basic vehicle for communication of beliefs, thoughts and ideas. Without the right to speak one’s mind freely one would be forced to agree with everything society stated. With freedom of speech one’s own ideas can be expressed freely and the follower’s belief will be stronger. The words sound so simple, but without them the world would be a very different place.
College student drunkenness is far from new and neither are college and university efforts to control it. What is new, however, is the potential to make real progress on this age-old problem based on scientific research results. New research-based information about the consequences of high-risk college drinking and how to reduce it can empower colleges and universities, communities, and other interested organizations to take effective action. Hazardous drinking among college students is a widespread problem that occurs on campuses of all sizes and geographic locations. A recent survey of college students conducted by the Harvard University School of Public Health reported that 44 percent of respondents had drunk more than five drinks (four for women) consecutively in the previous two weeks. About 23 percent had had three or more such episodes during that time. The causes of this problem are the fact that students are living by themselves no longer with parents or guardians; they earn their own money; students need to be a part of a group, be accepted; and they have the wrong idea that to feel drunk is “cool.”
The legal drinking age in the United States will always be a point of contention. No one can settle upon a drinking age that everyone is in agreement with; should it be 18 or 21? Ages 18 and 21 are the most popular options, yet neither one has 100% of the vote. With the current legal drinking age in America standing at 21, meaning that people under the age of 21 cannot purchase or consume alcoholic food or beverages, there is the question of whether or not to lower it to 18 or 19 years old. This paper will argue that the drinking age should be lowered, and examine its impact on State University.
A Comparison of School Riots Newspapers In Bideford, Devon a disturbance broke out in a comprehensive school. The Daily Mirror and The Daily Telegraph both wrote a report on the story but their comments were quite different. I will analyse both papers use of language and their effect on the reader will be compared along with how emotive the tabloid and the broadsheet are. The two headlines for each story immediately show you how different the two papers are.
Binge or excessive drinking is the most serious problem affecting social life, health, and education on college campuses today. Binge or excessive drinking by college students has become a social phenomena in which college students do not acknowledge the health risks that are involved with their excessive drinking habits. Furthermore college students do not know enough about alcohol in general and what exactly it does to the body or they do not pay attention to the information given to them. There needs to be a complete saturation on the campus and surrounding areas, including businesses and the media, expressing how excessive drinking is not attractive and not socially accepted.
Jessup: I don’t want to deviate from your train of thought de jour, but I know how all you purveyors of infinite wisdom abandon these sites after one day. So that being said, do to circumstances beyond my control I wasn’t able don’t respond to your admonishment of Republicans use of "freedom," "liberty," etc.” yesterday.
In the media, defaming is taken quite seriously, if an individual is caught in the act. There have been a number of cases where a media individual has defamed someone, for example, Kyle Sandilands’s on air rants – one case where he stated that, Magda Szubanski should be in a concentration camp because she is overweight. Defamation can be defined as the act of damaging the good reputation of an individual ei – slander (Law Hand Book, 2015). This essay will outline whether defamation law is an ethical issue as much as it is a legal issue. Firstly outlining what defamation means for the media industry in Australia, Secondly outlining defamation cases in the media, and then lastly concluding the statement.
Regardless, if a ban is put in place, advertisement is really not needed, the product speaks for itself. As long as there are liquor stores, wineries, bars, grocery stores and restaurants where alcoholic beverages are sold, consumers will continue to drink the alcoholic beverage desired. In some cases there may be a decline in sales by not promoting various brands through televisions and radio ads, however, word of mouth can and will always sale a product. One’s opinion less advertisements should not be promoted in children’s zone areas, colleges, and universities. The reason being, alcohol is no different than drugs or tobacco, for those individuals that are under the age of 21 that has not obtained social responsibility; the ban may just help to save someone’s life along with parents, and educators teaching young adolescents what could happen to their bodies, mentally, physically and emotionally. Nevertheless, the ban may help Central Hudson’s guidelines; however, it is not limited to. Reports on the alcoholic beverage industry 's fight to maintain their right to commercial speech in the United States as areas around the country are increasingly restricting the advertising of alcoholic beverages. Challenge to an ordinance banning the advertising of alcohol and tobacco products on traditional fixed billboards