Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » ONE FOR TIM NOT-HAAS

    Filed at 8:23 am under by dcobranchi

    Can we agree that this is a First Amendment violation? ‘Cause the Maine-CLU seems to think so.

    10 Responses to “ONE FOR TIM NOT-HAAS”

    Comment by
    Nance Confer
    December 2nd, 2006
    at 9:43 am

    It’s a stupid waste of taxpayer money. Maybe they just don’t have crime in Maine?


    Comment by
    December 2nd, 2006
    at 10:55 am

    I can assure you Maine has crime.

    I think this sounds similar to Joe Camel. Joe is gone.

    Let Joe Camel tell the truth

    Advertising Alcohol and the First Amendment

    Prepared Remarks of
    Roscoe B. Starek, III, Commissioner
    Federal Trade Commissionl

    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    December 2nd, 2006
    at 12:05 pm

    Apples and oranges. Joe Camel was killed off as part of the tobacco settlement.

    Comment by
    December 2nd, 2006
    at 12:19 pm

    Well, they lost due to the FTC. Couldn’t the FTC have a role in alcohol advertisements such as this?
    After a long drawn out process, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company lost their court case to FTC, banning the ten-year old, Joe Cool Camel campaign.
    The Joe Camel character came under fire in the late 1990s as an example of harmful advertising targeted to the young. In 1998 the tobacco industry and the attorneys general of 46 states agreed to ban the use of cartoon characters in tobacco advertising, a practice that many thought had encouraged young people to start smoking.

    Comment by
    Daryl Cobranchi
    December 2nd, 2006
    at 1:42 pm

    No! The FTC could not outright ban Joe Camel. The company agreed as part of a court settlement to kill him off. The federal or state governments do no have the power to ban cartoons, even ones of Santa enjoying a cool one.

    Comment by
    December 2nd, 2006
    at 3:41 pm

    So the label might appeal to children – so what? They can’t buy it.

    Comment by
    December 2nd, 2006
    at 6:46 pm

    At the link there is voting:
    Almost 2 to 1 for the No’s.
    Do you agree with Maine’s ban on a beer label that shows Santa Claus with a brew?

    Comment by
    December 2nd, 2006
    at 7:25 pm

    I can’t read a lot of the comments because they are running under the ads on the side, so about a third of each line bleeds out of the brown strip and is lost.

    As to this beer’s appeal to children, I’m going to guess at the particular “children” that would be attempting to purchase beer and suggest that those kids are going to be the ones buying the “suitcase” of Natural Light at $8 instead of the $8 six pack of micro brewed beer.

    Either they think that four and five year olds may fall in love with an artistically rendered Santa and somehow manage to purchase this beer, or they think that a sixteen year old will fall sway to the rendering of Santa’s butt and, giggling fiendishly, somehow manage to purchase the beer and become an alcoholic.

    We need to stop being such prudes about beer. Give your kids a drink of beer. Better yet, give them a swig of a well made porter. That’s an adult taste for sure, and most kids, if they thought beer tasted like that, would be less inclined to want to drink.

    Comment by
    December 2nd, 2006
    at 7:59 pm

    Spuds McKenzie didn’t appeal to kids back in the 80s? The Olympia bears don’t appeal to kids? Seems like swamp piss beers can get away with child friendly advertising, but the good stuff can’t.

    Sort of like how mail order wine had so much trouble for years because the authorities claimed teenagers would be buying it. I’m sure teens looking to get their girlfriend tipsy to improve their odds will be spending $25 to ship quality wine in for the occasion.

    That’s what Boone’s Farm was invented for 🙂

    Comment by
    December 3rd, 2006
    at 12:06 am

    hmm, 😛 Yes, we can agree on this one.