plaatjes en pakjes
Tabaksfabrikanten hoeven vooralsnog niet met plaatjes (‘pictorial warnings’) te waarschuwen voor de schadelijke gevolgen van roken. De schokkende afbeeldingen van rottende tanden en longen met kanker zijn in strijd met de Grondwet van de Verenigde Staten, zo heeft een federale rechter In Washington DC op woensdag 29 februari 2012 bepaald in de uitspraak R.J. Reynolds v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (cv-11-14820). De Amerikaanse regering gaat (waarschijnlijk) in beroep.
Volgens de federale rechter dwingt de overheid in de USA al sinds 1966 alle tabaksfabrikanten om met een tekst feitelijk te waarschuwen voor de mogelijke schade van het roken. Met het voornemen dat alle fabrikanten ook afzichtelijke plaatjes zouden moeten zetten op tabaksproducten zouden de fabrikanten van overheidswege verplicht zijn een mening te geven of ‘digust’ op te roepen.
De plaatjes op de bovenste helft van de pakjes zouden dienen als “mini-billboards voor de antirookmaatregelen van de Amerikaanse regering”, aldus rechter Richard Leon.
“The graphic images here were neither designed to protect the consumer from confusion or deception, nor to increase consumer awareness of smoking risks. Rather they were crafted to evoke a strong emotional response calculated to provoke the viewer to quit or never start smoking.”
De bedrijven hebben echter, net als burgers en maatschappelijke organisaties, een grondwettelijk recht op vrije meningsuiting. Voorlichting over de gevaren van roken is misschien goed, ”maar simpelweg vertellen dat het publiek een legaal product niet moet kopen, is dat niet”, aldus het vonnis.
Bron: CNN, BNR
WASHINGTON (CNN) — A federal mandate requiring tobacco companies to place graphic images on their products warning of the dangers of smoking was tossed out Wednesday by a judge in Washington, with the judge saying the requirements were a violation of free speech.
“Unfortunately, because Congress did not consider the First Amendment implications of this legislation, it did not concern itself with how the regulations could be narrowly tailored to avoid unintentionally compelling commercial speech,” said federal Judge Richard Leon in his 19-page ruling.
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act passed in 2009 would have required nine written warnings such as “Cigarettes are addictive” and “Tobacco smoke causes harm to children.” Also included would have been alternating images of a corpse and smoke-infected lungs.
A group of tobacco companies led by R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard (i.e. Lorillard, R.J. Reynolds (Camel, Winston), Commonwealth Brands (Davidoff), Liggett (Montego) had sued, saying the warnings would be cost-prohibitive, and would dominate and damage the packaging and promotion of their particular brands. The legal question was whether the new labeling was purely factual and accurate in nature or was designed to discourage use of the products.
“The graphic images here were neither designed to protect the consumer from confusion or deception, nor to increase consumer awareness of smoking risks” said Leon. “Rather they were crafted to evoke a strong emotional response calculated to provoke the viewer to quit or never start smoking.”
Other color images required under the Food and Drug Administration rules would have been: a man smoking through a tracheotomy hole in his throat, smoke wafting from a child being kissed by her mother, a diseased mouth presumably from oral cancer linked to chewing tobacco and a woman weeping uncontrollably.
There was no immediate reaction to the ruling from the FDA, and the Justice Department, which defended the law in court, said it had no comment.
Lorillard attorney Floyd Abrams applauded the legal opinion. “The government, as the court said, is free to speak for itself, but it may not, except in the rarest circumstance, require others to mouth its position,” said Abrams, a prominent First Amendment scholar.
The word and image warning labels would have covered half of the cigarette packs sold at retail outlets, and 20% of cigarette advertising.
The federal law in question would also regulate the amount of nicotine and other substances in tobacco, and limit promotion of the products and related promotional merchandise at public events like sporting contests. The free speech aspect was the only issue in the current case.
Several other lawsuits over the labels are pending in federal court, part a two-decade federal and state effort to force tobacco companies to limit their advertising, and settle billions of dollars in state and private class-action claims over the health dangers of smoking.
Tags: advocacy, rechtszaak, tabak