Reason.com
No Separation of Meat and Milk
The Institute for Justice reports that the Supreme Court today vacated a 2004 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit that said the "Got Milk?" advertising campaign violates the First Amendment rights of dairy farmers who are forced to pay for it even though they object to the message that all milk is pretty much the same. The reversal was expected in the wake of last week's Supreme Court decision upholding the "Beef: It's What's for Dinner" campaign--although it was not inconceivable that, after ruling in 1997 that forcibly funded peach ads were constitutional, deciding in 2001 that generic mushroom ads were unconstitutional, and determining last week that beef-boosting ads were constitutional, the Court would change its mind yet again.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
- Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism (5.26)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|5.31.05 @ 11:14PM|#
How are they deciding these cases, coin flip?
lockjaw02|6.2.05 @ 4:27AM|#
Is this as bad as taxing smokers to give to orgs with the sole purpose of villifying and demonizing them?