ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, November 29, 1996 TAG: 9611290048
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A10 EDITION: METRO
CONSISTENT WITH their impulse to cramp freedoms - but only when they can get away with it, which increasingly requires resorting to the rationale, "It's for the children" - the feds are proposing to scotch the idea of liquor ads on television.
We have no problem with President Clinton using his bully pulpit to discourage liquor companies from advertising on the airwaves, or television companies from accepting and broadcasting the ads.
But, please, let's not toy with First Amendment protections when it comes to commercial speech on behalf of products that, since Prohibition anyway, have been legal.
For half a century, the liquor industry has voluntarily kept its ads off TV and radio. It's unfortunate the industry is considering abandoning this self-restraint. To their credit, if also to ward off restrictive legislation that might hit their beer and wine accounts, the major networks say they won't accept ads for hard drink. Reed Hundt, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, and Clinton have asked local broadcasters and cable companies to follow suit.
But Hundt and Rep. Joseph Kennedy, D-Mass., threaten to impose a government ban if the voluntary ban fails to hold. They want to protect children who might see the ads.
Which is a fine motive. But children are prohibited from buying beer and wine as well - and ads for these products saturate the airwaves. The government would be applying content-based censorship that, in recent years anyway, the Supreme Court hasn't permitted even for commercial speech.
The answer to unhealthy speech, as always, is not suppression but more speech. Kids should be educated about the dangers of alcohol and the frequently deadly mix of alcohol and driving. Some government officials should be educated about the difference between preaching and legislating against vice.
LENGTH: Short : 41 linesby CNB