Question

A federal statute and related regulations prohibited producers of beer from listing, on a product label, the alcohol content of the beer in the container on which the label appeared. The regulation existed because the U.S. government believed that if alcohol content could be disclosed on labels, certain producers of beer might begin marketing their brand as having a higher alcohol content than competing beers. The government was concerned that “strength wars” among producers could then develop, that consumers would seek out beers with higher alcohol content and that adverse public health consequences would follow. Because it wished to include alcohol content information on container labels for its beers, Coors Brewing Co. filed suit against the U.S. government and asked the court to rule that the statute and regulations violated Coors’s constitutional right to freedom of speech.

Answer the following Questions

1. On which provision in the U.S. Constitution was Coors relying in its challenge of the statute and regulations?

2. Does a corporation such as Coors possess the same constitutional right to freedom of speech possessed by an individual human being, or does the government have greater latitude to restrict the content of a corporation’s speech?

3. The alcohol content disclosures that Coors wished to make with regard to its product would be classified as commercial speech. Does commercial speech receive the same degree of constitutional protection that political or other noncommercial speech receives?

4. Which party—Coors or the federal government—won the case, and why?

5. Do producers and other sellers of alcoholic beverages have, in connection with the sale of their products, special ethical obligations that sellers of other products might not have? If so, what are those obligations and why do they exist?

ORIGINAL ANSWERS AND NO PLAGIARISM.

Answer 1

1. Coors utilized the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution to help their test of the rules and guidelines set before them.

2. Truly enterprises do likewise groups precisely the same sacred ideal to the right to speak freely as a person, along these lines the legislature can't force more upon an organization than a person.

3. Be that as it may, on account of Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., since Coors had the option to demonstrate that disallowing the capacity to list the liquor content outwardly of their jugs was legitimately associated with the advancement of general wellbeing and security, the legislature had a troublesome time demonstrating any advantages of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act

4. On account of Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co., the judge so requested for Coors Brewing Co. as the administration was not ready to deliver adequate proof that posting the liquor substance would create "quality wars". Likewise, because of the way that the FAAA did not boycott wines and spirits from posting liquor content and in certainty commanded that they list any substance over 14%, any legitimizations for prohibiting the substance were deficient as the FAAA countered itself in all perspectives. The legislature bombed the Central Hudson test, in this way losing the case.