Posts Tagged ‘legally interesting/controversial’
Raging Beer Controversy in Michigan
On or about September 17, 2009, Flying Dog Brewery requested permission to sell Raging Bitch beer in Michigan. About two months later, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission denied the application, asserting: “The Commission finds that the proposed label which includes the brand name ‘Raging Bitch’ contains such language deemed detrimental to the health, safety or welfare of the general public.”
Flying Dog filed a lawsuit last month, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. In a later post, we’ll review the state’s rationale. But for today, we highlight a few of the juiciest portions from the pleadings submitted by Flying Dog (and attorney Alan Gura). The complaint asserts:
Regrettably, the Michigan Liquor Control Commission and its members have taken it upon themselves to control not merely alcoholic beverages, but speech as well. Acting as a censorial board, Defendants wield state authority to impose their personal tastes as a prior restraint against core First Amendment expression that happens to be placed on beer labels.
The supporting memorandum goes on to cite the Staub case wherein the U.S. Supreme Court said:
It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which … makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official — as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official — is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.
The memorandum argues that the ban is too broad; “preventing all adults from all access to Raging Bitch [in order to protect some children] is hardly a narrowly tailored restriction.” The Butler case calls back from 54 years ago to remind us “by quarantining the general reading public against books not too rugged for grown men and women in order to shield juvenile innocence. … Surely, this is to burn the house to roast the pig.” The brewer’s memorandum concludes:
The First Amendment is incompatible with the notion that government regulators may sit in judgment of a beer label, scrutinizing it for conformance to their personal views on what sort of expression might disturb delicate sensibilities.
If your tender sensibilities are not yet disturbed, you can find other such labels here.
Related Posts:
Tags:
legally interesting/controversial, policy, political, risqué, speech, state
Posted in:
Email This Post
| 
Print This Post
|
Ghettoblaster Beer
Does the government check for political correctness when reviewing beer labels? Should they?
Here is Ghettoblaster beer. Is it politically correct? Does it or should it offend anyone? Is it any worse than Ghetto Fabulous wine?
One option is to get into a snit and lay on the outrage. Another option is to learn from it. Does “ghetto” really deride or refer to one race only? Maybe, but not the one you may think of first. Here is the origin:
1610s, “part of a city to which Jews were restricted,” especially in Italy, from It. ghetto “part of a city to which Jews are restricted,” various theories of its origin include: Yiddish get “deed of separation;” … or It. borghetto “small section of a town” (dim. of borgo, of Germanic origin, see borough). Extended by 1899 to crowded urban quarters of other minority groups (especially blacks in U.S. cities). As an adjective by 1903 (modern slang usage from 1999). Ghetto-blaster “large, portable stereo” is from 1982.
Related Posts:
Tags:
legally interesting/controversial
Posted in:
Email This Post
| Print This Post
|
Caricatures
Holy smokes, change really is afoot at TTB. I was startled to see these wine labels recently, with various and sundry famous politicians emblazoned all upon them, and not in the most flattering light. I suppose there is some extra latitude for parody- or caricature-type speech, and there certainly is or ought to be latitude as to political speech. But often in the past, TTB has disallowed presidentially-oriented labels. Just two years ago, the line was drawn here, as to President Obama, and this one seemed to go too far.
The abstraction, in these caricatures, seems to help, as does the absence of the full names. The Horizon Cellars Winery, of Siler City, North Carolina has a large series of the labels depicted above. We already pointed to various labels with Former President George Bush and Sarah Palin in the past, so today we elected to highlight Former Vice President Dick Cheney, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and Former President Bill Clinton.
But there are other reasons to revel in these labels. Any discussion of Joe Biden would be embarrassingly remiss without a fond recollection of that storied day when Joe Biden washed his Trans Am, in cutoffs and no shirt, out back behind the White House.
Related Posts:
Tags:
famous, legally interesting/controversial, policy, political, speech
Posted in:
Email This Post
| Print This Post
|
FDA and FTC Banish Four Loko and Joose
In a massive and coordinated action yesterday, the Federal Government moved to favor Red Bull and pummel other drinks with caffeine.
FDA handed a giant gift to Red Bull here.
The FTC handed a humongous present to Red Bull here.
Other actions are expected imminently, as legions of other regulators rush in to exaggerate the dangers (it looks like soda, it’s “loaded with caffeine,” it’s like a “plague” and “toxic”) and ignore evidence to the contrary. This follows many state actions in recent weeks. Presto, problem solved! We eagerly await the evidence that young people cut back on alcohol, or cut back on co-consumption of alcohol with caffeine. We hope it’s better than the current leading study; it purports to highlight the dangers of the pre-mixed products such as Four Loko, Liquid Charge, Joose and scores of others — without ever having examined any such products. Instead, the O’Brien study reviewed products so different they are not even within the scope of yesterday’s governmental actions (none of which, after some dexterous sleight of hand and misdirection, stopped it from instigating the above actions).
We believe caffeine and alcohol raise plenty of important public policy issues, whether they are combined or not, and they warrant serious deliberation. But many of the deliberations so far reflect political pressures more than an even-handed review.
November 18, 2010 Update: TTB lands another blow, against caffeine added to alcohol beverages, here.
Related Posts:
Tags:
caffeine/secondary effects, fda, legally interesting/controversial, media buzz, policy
Posted in:
Email This Post
| Print This Post
|
Wit Caught in a Wringer
Port Brewing LLC recently got its wit caught in a wringer. The beer label depicts a witch being burned at the stake. Various wiccans, pagans, shamans and others were not amused and The New York Times was there to cover it. About a week before Halloween, the Times article quoted an offended person thusly:
“Can you imagine them showing a black person being lynched or a Jewish person going to the oven?” she wrote. “Such images are simply not tolerated in our society anymore (thank the Goddess) and this one should not be, either.”
To witch which the brewer responded:
We have been accused of inspiring violence against women, and we have been compared to the violence in Darfur. … It has run the gamut from people saying politely, ‘This is offensive to pagans,’ to people saying we are responsible for all that is wrong in the world.
Port seems to be in the process of changing the label. Port’s co-founder said he was “‘totally in favor’ of changing the label and that he and his co-workers had been ‘ignorantly unaware of the mistake’ they had made.”
The brewery explained that, far from being an attack on women:
Witch’s Wit is in a line of Catholic-themed beers, like Inferno Ale and Judgment Day, conceived in the spirit of gentle satire by Tomme Arthur, another of the brewery’s owners. Mr. Arthur says he is “a recovering Catholic.” … [The company also said it] “would really like to have some kind of contest for a great label.”
It sounds like the system worked pretty well, without a lot of extra governmental intervention. The label got approved way back in 2008 and there was little fanfare. Eventually, a bunch of people got offended, spoke up, and Port quickly decided to change the label. Beernews has a lot more good information about this controversy. For those who did not get enough witch-action on Halloween, here is a squished witch and here is a burning one.
Related Posts:
Tags:
legally interesting/controversial, media buzz
Posted in:
Email This Post
| Print This Post
|
