Court ruling boosting
free speech nullifies city
ban on tobacco adsThe issue: The U.S. Supreme Court
has struck down a Massachusetts ban
on advertising tobacco near schools, in
effect nullifying a similar ban in Honolulu.
COMMERCIAL free-speech rights have been relegated to a second tier in recent decades, but that status seems to be improving. The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down a Massachusetts prohibition of tobacco advertising near schools, a decision that invalidates similar bans in Honolulu and other cities.In striking down a ban on sexually explicit messages on the Internet and advertising restrictions on casino gambling, beer prices and now tobacco, the high court is distinguishing itself as a champion of the First Amendment for businesses as well as individuals.
The high court ruling declares unconstitutional a 1999 ban on tobacco advertising within 1,000 feet of any residential zone, school, youth center or public park in Massachusetts. The effect of the ruling will invalidate similar laws in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and various other places across the country.
A Honolulu ordinance enacted by the City Council in 1997 prohibits tobacco advertising in "publicly visible" locations within 1,000 feet of any school. That ordinance effectively has been nullified.
The decision is a victory for tobacco companies, which is unfortunate. More importantly, however, it benefits society in general by protecting free speech. In the court's majority opinion, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor cited its principle four years ago in declaring unconstitutional the 1996 Communications Decency Act, a congressional attempt to censor the Internet. "Protecting children from harmful materials...does not justify an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults," she wrote.
According to established court principle, any government regulation's infringement on First Amendment protection generally must be supported by a "compelling" government interest. Since 1980, the Supreme Court has ruled that a government regulation can limit commercial speech by showing only the regulation would "directly and materially advance" legitimate interests -- an inferior standard.
The court rejected the tobacco industry's argument in the Massachusetts case that commercial speech be given full First Amendment protection. However, while retaining the second tier, it provided broad protection of commercial speech. That does not mean that businesses can engage in speech that promotes illegal activity or is misleading. Nor does it affect the tobacco industry's agreement, as part of the 1998 settlement of a lawsuit brought by 46 states, including Hawaii, to take down billboard ads and ban logos on caps at T-shirts.
It does mean a business can exercise a wide measure of freedom to advertise its legal product, even though many, if not most, Americans don't like it.
U.S. should say ‘no’ to
2008 Beijing OlympicsThe issue: On July 13, the United
States must cast a vote on the site
of the 2008 Olympics, with the capital
of China, Beijing, being the
leading contender.
This is a tough call. Strong arguments are being made for the U.S. delegation to the International Olympic Committee to cast its ballot for Beijing and equally strong arguments assert that the United States should oppose Beijing's bid. On balance, the United States should vote against Beijing and for either Toronto or Paris.Actually, there are two issues here -- the vote itself and whether the United States should lobby for whatever position it takes. The United States should keep quiet, vote against Beijing, and let others decide for themselves how to vote. The Chinese will be unhappy but won't be able to blame the outcome on America, no matter which way it goes.
The argument for awarding the 2008 games to Beijing holds that this would give the Chinese the international recognition for which they thirst as a rising power. It would draw China further into the world arena, a policy sometimes called engagement, and would thus cause the Chinese to be less antagonistic toward their neighbors, notably Japan, and the West. Winning the competition would be taken as a vote of confidence by the ruling regime and cause it to ease its political repression of Falun Gong and other dissidents. It might even lessen the Chinese threat to use military force against Taiwan.
Unhappily, the Chinese have given few signs that they would be any better behaved if they became hosts for the Olympics. Their bid for the games borders on political bullying as they have warned of dire consequences if they don't get them. Not likely to change are the cultural genocide in Tibet, the repression of Muslims in western China, the campaign against Falun Gong, and the swift execution of criminals shortly after their conviction in courts that have rushed to judgment -- all of which the Chinese have made clear they consider to be nobody's business but theirs.
For Americans, the arrest and detention of American citizens and legal residents of the United States has to be particularly galling. The State Department protests are blithely brushed aside in Beijing. The callous handling of the EP-3 episode in which American aviators made an emergency landing in Hainan after their plane had been sideswiped by a Chinese fighter over the South China Sea remains vivid. American journalists have been severely beaten by Chinese security forces, the most recent just a few days ago. The steady stream of anti-American vitriol that spews from official spokesmen and the press controlled by the Communist Party and the hostility emanating from the People's Liberation Army, including nuclear threats and electronic hacking, surely does not warm the hearts of Americans.
Interestingly, opposition to Beijing's bid seems to come from across the political spectrum. Jeff Jacoby, considered a liberal columnist for the Boston Globe, wrote in these pages on Friday that presenting the games to Beijing would be to give Chinese dictators an "enormous propaganda opportunity." Michelle Malkin, a conservative who seems to think Genghis Khan was a lefty pinko, has reminded her readers that Olympic ceremonies would be held in Tiananmen Square, near which Chinese soldiers killed pro-democracy Chinese students in 1989.
In sum, the Chinese must understand that actions and words have consequences, and a American "no" vote on the Olympic games would be an appropriate penalty.
Published by Oahu Publications Inc., a subsidiary of Black Press.Don Kendall, President
John Flanagan, publisher and editor in chief 529-4748; jflanagan@starbulletin.com
Frank Bridgewater, managing editor 529-4791; fbridgewater@starbulletin.com
Michael Rovner, assistant managing editor 529-4768; mrovner@starbulletin.com
Lucy Young-Oda, assistant managing editor 529-4762; lyoungoda@starbulletin.com The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (USPS 249460) is published daily by
Oahu Publications at 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 7-500, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Periodicals postage paid at Honolulu, Hawaii. Postmaster: Send address changes to
Star-Bulletin, P.O. Box 3080, Honolulu, Hawaii 96802.
