This week, a federal judge ruled that a long-standing Virginia state law prohibiting the advertising of alcohol in college newspapers violated the First Amendment.
In the lawsuit, which was brought by student newspapers at the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech with help from the American Civil Liberties Union, the plaintiffs argued that the censoring of their newspapers was unconstitutional and limited their competitiveness for advertising revenue.
The law, which was adopted by the Virginia Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 20 years ago in order to curb underage drinking, prohibited the use of "'happy hour' or similar terms" in online and print advertisements, and it barred college newspapers from advertising beer, wine or liquor "unless in reference to a dining establishment." Even if a particular dining establishment were referenced, the advertisement would be unable to mention specific brands of alcohol or prices.
While this may or may not be an encroachment on student publications' freedom of speech, we at the Daily believe that what is more interesting here is the "if I can't see it, it doesn't exist" mentality that seems to inform prohibitive laws like this one - which exist in different forms in cities and states across the country.
By removing a product - be it cigars, beer or, in some cases, contraceptives - from view, do the authorities expect us to doubt its existence? That approach worked when we were infants; at one time or another, we all truly believed that Daddy hiding behind his hands rendered him invisible. But we've learned a few things since then, including that alcohol exists regardless of whether or not it is staring up at us from a centerfold.
And what if we generalize this law? We generally agree that gambling is inadvisable, yet commercials for lotteries and casinos run on the television daily. If the same logic were to be applied to gambling, concerned parents and lawmakers would disallow such ads for fear that our precious young teenagers might escape their beds and hop a midnight train bound for a fun-filled night of reckless revelry at Mohegan Sun.
Of course, it is true that a reminder that the option exists may whet a student's appetite for liquor in the same way that a Wendy's commercial at 3 a.m. reminds a munchies-ridden pothead that he could really go for a burger.
But on a college campus, where alcohol is plentiful, banning such advertisements is reminiscent of the police officer who stands in front of a horrific train wreck and tries to dismiss the gawking crowds with cries of "Move along, folks! There's nothing to see here."
We at the Daily do not condemn the spirit in which this law was originally imposed. We recognize that, while college students may argue and complain about such impositions, it is this perennial tug of war between students and authorities that prevents us from getting heinously out of control.
In short, we appreciate the authorities' intervention and their concern. And that's something we can discuss over a tall, frosty beer advertisement.
