Big Tobacco sue to prevent "gross" graphics on cigarette packs, claiming it violates the First Amendment

Remember when Australia banned branded cigarette-packaging? Well now they're planning the same thing in the good old US of A and the tobacco giants there, who all stem from the states that stopped growing hemp in order to grow tobacco instead, have decided to sue to block the "gross" graphics.

Five tobacco companies have filed suit against the U.S. government claiming that government-ordered graphic warning labels on cigarette packs violate their First Amendment rights.
Starting on Sept. 22, 2012, cigarettes sold in the U.S. will have to carry graphic images warning of the dangers of smoking. These images include a tracheotomy hole, rotting teeth, diseased lungs, and a body on an autopsy table.
The images will be accompanied by dissuasive wording on cigarettes and smoking, including "cigarettes are addictive," "cigarettes cause cancer," and "smoking can kill you." They must be displayed on at least half of the front and back of cigarette packs, and 20% of the top of the pack.
The lawsuit was filed by four of the nation's largest tobacco companies -- including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Lorillard, and one smaller company (Sante Fe Natural Tobacco Company) -- against the FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services.
The companies are seeking to prevent enforcement of the images, arguing that the government cannot legally force them to espouse an anti-smoking advocacy message.
"This is precisely the type of forced speech the First Amendment prohibits," the lawsuit said, which was filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia.
The government can require that tobacco companies' products carry "purely factual and uncontroversial"
information about cigarettes, but the FDA is overstepping its bounds by requiring companies to advertise against the very product they are trying to legally sell, the lawsuit said.
"The regulations violate the First Amendment," Floyd Abrams, a partner in the New York law firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel, who is representing Lorillard said in a statement.
"The notion that the government can require those who manufacture a lawful product to emblazon half of its package with pictures and words admittedly drafted to persuade the public not to purchase that product cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny," he said.

So there you have it, Big Tobacco reckon the warnings are unconstitutional. src="adland.tv/ustralia-bans-branded-cigarette-packaging">Australia banned branded cigarette-packaging? Well now they're planning the same thing in the good old US of A and the tobacco giants there, who all stem from the states that stopped growing hemp in order to grow tobacco instead, have decided to sue to block the "gross" graphics.

Five tobacco companies have filed suit against the U.S. government claiming that government-ordered graphic warning labels on cigarette packs violate their First Amendment rights.
Starting on Sept. 22, 2012, cigarettes sold in the U.S. will have to carry graphic images warning of the dangers of smoking. These images include a tracheotomy hole, rotting teeth, diseased lungs, and a body on an autopsy table.
The images will be accompanied by dissuasive wording on cigarettes and smoking, including "cigarettes are addictive," "cigarettes cause cancer," and "smoking can kill you." They must be displayed on at least half of the front and back of cigarette packs, and 20% of the top of the pack.
The lawsuit was filed by four of the nation's largest tobacco companies -- including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and Lorillard, and one smaller company (Sante Fe Natural Tobacco Company) -- against the FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services.
The companies are seeking to prevent enforcement of the images, arguing that the government cannot legally force them to espouse an anti-smoking advocacy message.
"This is precisely the type of forced speech the First Amendment prohibits," the lawsuit said, which was filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia.
The government can require that tobacco companies' products carry "purely factual and uncontroversial"
information about cigarettes, but the FDA is overstepping its bounds by requiring companies to advertise against the very product they are trying to legally sell, the lawsuit said.
"The regulations violate the First Amendment," Floyd Abrams, a partner in the New York law firm of Cahill Gordon & Reindel, who is representing Lorillard said in a statement.
"The notion that the government can require those who manufacture a lawful product to emblazon half of its package with pictures and words admittedly drafted to persuade the public not to purchase that product cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny," he said.

So there you have it, Big Tobacco reckon the warnings are unconstitutional.