U.S. District Court Judge Lauck issued a summary judgment yesterday which ruled Virginia ABC rules 3 VAC-5-20-40 A and B (3) are unconstitutional.
The ACLU filed a challenge on behalf of the Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech, the parent company of the Collegiate Times, and the Cavalier Daily, the University of Virginia's student newspaper, on June 8, 2006.
The commissioners of the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Commission were named as defendants in the lawsuit, as were the Chief Operating Officer of the commission and the director of the Law Enforcement Bureau of the Commission.
The ABC's regulations were initially in place to limit underage and binge drinking.
"The issue of drinking on college campuses is an emotional one and of course everyone wants to do what they can to address the problem," said Rebecca Glenberg, the legal director of the ACLU of Virginia. "But there was no evidence that suppressing the free speech rights of college newspapers did anything to address the problem."
Lauck found that the state can show no evidence that the rules have had any effect in decreasing either underage drinking or binge drinking among college students.
The Collegiate Times and the Cavalier Daily also felt the regulation crippled their revenues.
"Both the Collegiate Times and Cavalier Daily rely heavily on advertising to support their reporting and other programs...this regulation was severely hindering that," Glenberg said. "It put them at a real competitive disadvantage."
In addition, editors at the Collegiate Times believed that the ABC's regulations hindered their free speech rights.
"Collegiate Times editors had recognized and discussed the fact that they thought this was an unconstitutional rule against their free speech," said Kelly Wolff, the general manager of EMCVT. "Students felt it was important."
Wolff also said it was the only case they were aware of where the editors did not determine the content of the newspaper - a state regulation did.
As newspapers, both publications felt strongly about the principals of the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech, Glenberg said.
Pittsburgh University's student newspaper, The Pitt News, entered a challenge against Pennsylvania law that prohibited advertisers from advertising in any publication that was published for any educational institution
The case, Pitt News v. Pappert, ended in favor of the newspaper, with the majority saying the opinion of the court was that the First Amendment precluded enforcement of Pennsylvania law.
Samuel Alito, then a judge on the appeals court that heard the case, is now a judge in the Supreme Court.
Following the victory for student media in Pennsylvania, the Collegiate Times decided to enter a challenge against ABC.
"We realized that there was a good legal precedent out there and we contacted the ACLU," Wolff said.
After close to two years in court, both the ACLU and EMCVT are thrilled with Lauck's ruling.
"I think it's an important victory for student media in Virginia for the court to realize that it is an unconstitutional infringement on free speech," Wolff said.
Leave a comment 13 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
OMG, take that ABC! Now, start printin' those alcohol ads!
Reply to this Top
The CT ought to have more to report on than the latest fashionable drinking trends.
Reply to this Top
It's not reporting, moron. Read the article. It's for advertising which makes the CT a lot of money!
Reply to this Top
I'm gettin drunk to celebrate
Reply to this Top
Raises an interesting question, though, regarding the legality of tobacco advertisements as well. I recognize that there are federal statutes which prohibit tobacco advertisements - it just strikes me as odd that the government has created for itself an 'intellectual monopoly' on tobacco sales by running its own anti-smoking commercials without any sort of permissible rebuttal from the tobacco industry.
Reply to this Top
poorly written in the first paragraph someone should define the rules in question never assume your reader knows the back part of the story
Reply to this Top
Agree with the last person, no mention of what law they are even talking about until the end of the article. More poor reporting from the CT....
Reply to this Top
yeah seriously...really poorly written
Reply to this Top
Although this article is ABOUT the newspaper, should it necessarily be IN the newspaper?
Reply to this Top
The CT is full or slipshod reporting. They never check their facts and have no sense of journalistic ethics. You will rarely find a piece of real reporting in this rag.
Reply to this Top
I get so tired of posters who believe it's trendy to bash the CT without presenting any examples. Sure, they screw up, and sure you should offer criticism, but mindlessly ragging on fellow students is pretty low.
Reply to this Top
Jason, I thought the same thing about whether this should be in the CT. But in their defense, I did see it dozens of other places, including washpost: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040101121.html
Reply to this Top
Finally! Looking forward to advertising in the future!
Reply to this Top