Politicians of every age and every stripe have long favored censorship as a means of controlling independent decisionmaking by the people.

The latest salvo in this ongoing struggle are the attempts by some in Congress to stamp out cigarette advertising - by banning it altogether, by making cigarette companies pay for counter advertising or by making it more expensive than other forms of advertising.These proposals are premised on the notion that people do not know what is good for them and cannot be trusted to make decisions for themselves as long as they are exposed to "evil" advertising. Silence the "bad" speech, or force cutbacks by adding financial burdens, and what the people don't know won't hurt them.

Fortunately, the First Amendment prohibits such abusive paternalism. The Supreme Court's decisions make abun-dant-ly clear that cigarette advertising is protected by the First Amendment.

Put aside that tobacco is the subject of these advertisements. Imagine if a state banned ads that promoted abortion services or any other controversial products or if it required that the advertiser help pay to promote a contrasting point of view. Surely it becomes more obvious that this is an infringement on our free-speech rights.

In support of their claims, proponents of banning or burdening tobacco advertising often point to the lower court decisions in 1971 and 1972 upholding the ban on tobacco advertising over the electronic media. Their reliance on these cases is misplaced because these lawsuits were decided when commercial speech was not considered within the bounds of the First Amendment.

In 1976, however, the Supreme Court accorded commercial advertising constitutional protection for the first time, and the degree of protection has grown since then, Even in 1993, the courts said that news racks that were used for the distribution of commercial catalogs could not be banned as long as others featuring daily newspapers were permitted.

One reason the high court recognizes the First Amendment's protection of advertising is because the court found that a consumer's interest in the free flow of commercial information "may be as keen, if not keener by far, than his interest in the day's most urgent political debate."

Moreover, the court also acknowledged that it is often difficult to separate that which is purely commercial from that which is also political or social.

A complete ban on tobacco advertising would give the government an opportunity to censor non-misleading speech about a legal product, without leaving open alternative channels of communication.

View Comments

If this ban passed constitutional muster, legislatures could always avoid dealing directly with products they do not like by aiming their prohibition, not at the products, but at speech about the products.

The First Amendment simply does not permit speech to be the vehicle for suppressing the product, particularly where the product itself is fully within the regulatory authority of the government.

Some claim that tobacco products are uniquely dangerous, so it is permissible to ignore the First Amendment just this once. Yet, it is clear that the same claim can be made about a variety of products or services from abortion to prescription drugs, from violent movies to alcohol.

Censorship, the Constitution teaches, is never right. Instead, tobacco itself (rather than speech about it) may be regulated, or we can redouble our efforts to educate people who do not understand the dangers of tobacco use. The battle to improve public health should not require us to trample upon our vibrant free-speech tradition.

Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.