Court Ruling on Campus Alcohol Ads a Step Backwards, Says MADD
by Jim Brown
August 9, 2004
(AgapePress) - The group Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is expressing disappointment with a federal appeals court ruling that declared Pennsylvania's ban on alcohol ads in college newspapers unconstitutional.A three-judge panel of the Third Circuit court in Philadelphia said the ad ban chills free speech and would not reduce the demand for alcohol by underage students. James Fell, a researcher at the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, has been on the MADD board of directors since 1999. He says the decision is a step in the wrong direction because it allows the alcohol industry to act irresponsibly.
"The industry standard [for television and radio] is that we will not advertise on programs or in magazines where the adult readership or the adult population in viewing that program is under 70 percent. That's their standard," Fell says. "Now obviously [on] a college campus, at least 50 percent are under the age of 21 -- so I would think that that's violating their own standard."
The researcher contends that college publications can look elsewhere to find ad revenue. "If they have to depend upon alcohol sponsors, I think that's a sad commentary on their effort," he says. "I would think there are many other sponsors who would sponsor a college newspaper."
In addition, Fell suggests both sides of the issue be presented when alcohol ads do appear. "I think if the alcohol industry is going to advertise their product in college newspapers, that for every ad they have there ought to be a counter-ad, paid for by them, about the devastation caused by under-age drinking," he says. There is solid evidence, the researcher says, that a bombardment of alcohol advertising predisposes young people to drink.
Fell believes the state of Pennsylvania should appeal the ruling, noting that public health issues provided a good basis for the law in the first place.
