In a great example of how First Amendment law impacts businesses, a federal court in Virginia ruled that the government’s new requirement that cigarette packages contain graphic images related to the harms that cigarettes cause is unconstitutional. As explained here, the Court found that the images were not intended to provide information, but rather to evoke emotional responses. This went beyond the government justification of conveying the dangers of smoking. This is an unusual case where the government is not trying to censor speech, but rather force businesses to speak.
Here are some of the images that would have been required:
What do you think? Over the line, or a good idea? Should the government be allowed to force companies to speak?
13 Comments
Yuchen Qin posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:13 pm
First Amendment law protects the freedom of speech. In my opinion, it is not only about what has been said, but also about the right not being compelled to say something. If businesses are forced by the government to speak of what they would rather not say, they should be under protection of First Amendment choosing to keep silent this time.
Sophie Park posted on March 1, 2012 at 6:40 pm
These images can seem offensive to some, and are unnecessary. Most smokers are already aware of the harmful effects of smoking, but choose to smoke anyways. The Surgeon General’s Warning is enough to inform smokers of cigarette’s harmful effects.This goes beyond the First Amendment and it is unnecessary to include graphic pictures such as the ones displayed above.
Yuting Su posted on March 1, 2012 at 8:52 pm
This requirement will definitely violate tobacco companies’ right. First, the image is so big that cover half of the cigarette pack. It restricted companies to design their pack. When government force companies to put the image, their limite companies’ right to speak throught pack of the product. Also, it is not the only way to stop people from smoking. Government has no right to force companies to say something.
Julia Poon posted on March 4, 2012 at 9:41 pm
I agree with Sophie. Many smokers are already aware of the harmful effects of smoking. Although the images definitely have more of an impact than a small sentence on a cigarette package, the images are too graphic and unnecessary. Rather than enforcing cigarette companies to require images related to the harms of smoking directly on the package, I think they should require a less offensive alternative to spread awareness that does not need to be directly on the package.
Chin-Yi (Lucy ) Kuo posted on March 5, 2012 at 12:21 pm
This is a government enforcement that has been practiced in Taiwan for a long time. I am not sure if it works its purpose, but Taiwan does have a relatively small smoking population. I guess it did have some effect at the beginning, but overtime, people are just used to it, and like what Sophie and Julia said, most people are fully aware of the negative effects of smoking, so putting those pictures should make no changes to those people’s decision on whether to smoke or not. However, it might intimidate people who want to start or try smoking from doing so.
Chih-Yi Kao (Jessica) posted on March 5, 2012 at 1:09 pm
As what Lucy said, in many Asian countries, governments have already forced this law. When I first came to the U.S., I was surprised to see the packaging of the cigarettes here. In my opinion, I think putting those graphic images do help reducing the number of smokers. Although the images might not have an impact on heavy smokers, I believe they do remind first-try smokers the harms that might happen to their health. I think this allows people to make better decision regarding to their health.
Jinfeng Cai posted on March 5, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Smoking is harmful to our health and will cause serious disease in smokers’ later lifetime. And smoking is also harming people around you who even don’t pick up a cigaratte. I believe that most us are aware of how bad smoking is since our early school years. In this particular case, I believe that government could not force companies to change the graphic images according to its expectation. This indeed violates companies free speech rights. On the other hand, I personally do not agree on what FDA says that “the public interest in conveying the dangers of smoking outweighs the companies’ free speech rights” because there is no logical connection between two issues. People who smoke will not easily quit smoking just because of the chaing graphic images.
Ryan Gee posted on March 5, 2012 at 2:24 pm
I have to say, just like the restaurant article, in addition to agreeing with the court, I also believe that cigarette companies should not be forced to even disclose the hazards of cigarettes. People just always be aware of the hazards of activities before engaging in them. Now a days, there is information on everything on the web and there is virtually free internet everywhere you go. Because of the growth in technology and speed we are able to receive information, people should be informed, or at least have access to the information, to make rational decisions.
Julianne Kodack posted on March 5, 2012 at 4:13 pm
I feel like its a good idea. Cigarettes should be banned all together and maybe this visual sight of the damages can help those from buying them. It may not stop those already smoking because I am sure the are aware of the effects already, but it may stop those young teens who need that extra reminder cigarettes are bad for you. The imaging does cover half of the packaging but I think its for the better. Otherwise companies would just be soliciting more reasons why there cigarettes are better than the others and that is far from what is needed. I feel as those being able to see first hand, right in from of your face the damage it can cause will stop at least some from using the product and all it does take is one, to spread the word.
Ting Ting Yang posted on March 5, 2012 at 4:41 pm
As an international student, I am fairly certain that I’ve seen equally disturbing warning images on cigarette packs back at home in Taiwan. I’ve grown accustomed to it. While the images are overtly graphic and daunting, they are the real consequences of smoking. Sometimes smokers might need a wake up call like that to make them realize what they are doing to their health. I feel like allowing these images to be published would do more good than harm, so I don’t really see a problem with it, except maybe the images can be toned down a little.
Steve Hicks posted on March 5, 2012 at 5:11 pm
I believe these pictures should be allowed on cigarette packages. The surgeon general warning on these boxes are becoming more and more straight forward/graphic, while also remaining 100% true. Cigarette companies should be forced to depict these images because I do believe that they evoke more than just an emotional response.
Hope Blalock posted on March 20, 2012 at 9:29 pm
It is interesting to me how many anti-smoking campaigns, media, etc. I’ve seen around lately. For example this article http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/anti-smoking-psa-offer-tips-life-tracheotomies-144615435.html (which actually mentions the case above) has three graphic, disturbing videos that would stop me in my tracks if I were a smoker.
Regardless of whether the labels are useful, I don’t think the law should be upheld. If we were consistent (which we should try to be with our laws, don’t you think?) we would put graphic pictures on everything harmful, we’d have cirrhotic livers on alcohol bottles, clogged arteries on fast food bags, and melanoma patients on tanning beds. Reasonably, we can’t possibly put images like this on every harmful object and I don’t think it would be constitutional to require businesses to do so.
Spencer Li posted on April 2, 2012 at 4:06 pm
I agree with the posts that say this type of advertising is excessive. I understand that there are smokers who already know the consequences of cigarettes. For some, it’s because of these consequences that they continue to smoke.