Student press victorious in alcohol-ad battle

A federal appeals court decision has delivered a victory to the student press, after the… A federal appeals court decision has delivered a victory to the student press, after the latest, and possibly final, development in The Pitt News’ five-year battle to overturn a law preventing university-affiliated publications from publishing paid alcoholic beverage advertisements.

The July 29 decision stems from an amendment to Pennsylvania’s Liquor Code, passed in 1996, prohibiting college-affiliated media from carrying advertisements for alcoholic beverages. In an opinion written by Judge Samuel A. Alito for the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a three-judge panel held that “the First Amendment precludes the enforcement of the law in question against advertisers in The Pitt News.”

The first amendment concerns freedom of religion, press, assembly and expression.

In his decision, Alito conceded that alcohol ads influence young people, but wrote in his opinion, “Even if Pitt students do not see alcoholic beverage ads in The Pitt News, they will still be exposed to a torrent of beer ads on television and the radio, and they will still see alcoholic beverage ads in other publications.”

Alito also found that Pennsylvania had not adequately explored other avenues of alcohol abuse prevention. He noted that the state must carry the burden of finding means to help prevent alcohol abuse without unnecessarily inhibiting First Amendment rights. John Connolly, press secretary for the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General, kept open the possibility of an appeal.

“We are reviewing the court’s decision,” Connolly said. “We will discuss it with the [Pennsylvania] Liquor Control Board and make a decision whether to appeal it or not. We have 90 days to do that.”

After the law, known as Act 199, took effect in 1997, Oakland restaurant Fuel and Fuddle received notification from the state that its advertisements in The Pitt News were unlawful. The Pitt News then ceased running advertisements of drink specials, in order to protect its advertisers.

The Pitt News, filing a complaint as a third-party, on behalf of its advertisers, unsuccessfully attempted to get U.S. District Court Judge William Standish to halt imposition of the law in 1999. A panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Standish’s decision in 2000, but noted that The Pitt News had standing to challenge the law based on its own First Amendment concerns, which The Pitt News then did.

A 2003 decision by Judge Standish again upheld Act 199, and The Pitt News again challenged the law in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Last month, the court ruled that the law constituted a restriction of commercial speech, and that it unfairly targeted The Pitt News, which is often distributed alongside other newspapers that publish alcohol ads.

Vic Walczak, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union’s Pittsburgh office, argued the case on behalf of The Pitt News. Walczak said he believes the latest decision is a strong one.

“The earlier court decisions missed the issue,” Walczak said. “The issue was whether the government can make it a crime to publish information.”

Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, said The Pitt News’ challenge remains unique to student publications, but the new appeals court decision might change the situation in the future.

“This will have an effect on other states where, perhaps, student newspapers will decide to contest these kinds of laws,” Goodman said, explaining that Virginia, New Hampshire and Utah, among other states, have laws barring alcoholic beverage ads in student publications.

According to Pitt News Business Manager Bethany Litzinger, the decision will have a considerable financial impact on the newspaper. The law, according to the estimates of The Pitt News’ business office, resulted in a loss of $17,000 the first year Pennsylvania enforced it.

There have not been any recent estimates of the cost, but Litzinger believes it has continued to affect profits.

“Obviously, the South Side bars and the Shadyside bars turned their noses,” Litzinger said, referring to the business office’s attempts to sell them ads that did not mention alcohol, which Act 199 allowed.

Before the paper can publish alcohol ads, however, The Pitt News must first receive an order, called a mandate, from the court to proceed with the publication of such ads, Litzinger said.

The mandate will come only if Pennsylvania decides not to contest the appeals court ruling. The Commonwealth was given two weeks to contest, beginning on the date of the decision and ending this Thursday.

Not everyone in the Pitt community has welcomed the decision with Litzinger’s enthusiasm. Shirley Haberman, the health education administrator for Pitt’s Student Health Service, does not eagerly anticipate the possibility of alcohol ads returning to the pages of The Pitt News.

“I don’t believe businesses should be allowed to promote their products to a population that’s not legally able to purchase those products,” Haberman said.

According to Litzinger, about 75 percent of The Pitt News’ readers are at least 21 years old.

Barring an approved appeal, The Pitt News could begin publishing alcoholic beverage ads as soon as the first print issue of the fall semester. Such ads, Litzinger said, would come mostly from bars and restaurants ? presumably, many of the same bars and restaurants featured in The Pitt News’ “Drink Specials” section, a listing The Pitt News began providing without charge to the bars and restaurants, in protest of Standish’s 2003 decision to uphold Act 199.

The Act held alcohol providers, and not the newspaper, responsible for not purchasing alcohol ads and, consequently, The Pitt News could provide free alcohol advertisement without incurring a penalty.

Pitt spokesman John Fedele said Pitt has no comment about the decision at this time.