Of constitutional interest to us all are the 2009 tobacco warnings created by Congress. These new, far more graphic messages about the health dangers of smoking have been challenged by tobacco companies as infringements of their rights to corporate free speech. Now, two appeals courts have ruled, one upholding the warnings and one striking them down.
That sort of disagreement within the lower federal courts is a typical justification for the Supreme Court to agree to hear the cases. So, look for further developments on this issue. I'll keep you posted.
Share your thoughts: do you think these warnings infringe on free speech? [You can leave comments anonymously, if you wish.]
2 comments:
I'm not sure I understand what "corporate free speech" means. Why would corporations get free speech rights?
Since the second half of the nineteenth century, corporations have been treated as "persons" in legal matters. What we're seeing here is, I think, the logical end point of such a concept. I'm sure that doesn't explain it properly, but it's the best I can do!
Post a Comment