A federal statute and related regulations prohibited producers of beer from listing, on a product label, the alcohol content of the beer in the container on which the label appeared. The regulation existed because the U.S. government believed that if alcohol content could be disclosed on labels, certain producers of beer might begin marketing their brand as having a higher alcohol content than competing beers. The government was concerned that "strength wars" among producers could then develop, that consumers would seek out beers with higher alcohol content, and that adverse public health consequences would follow. Because it wished to include alcohol content information on container labels for its beers, Coors Brewing Co. filed suit against the United States government and asked the court to rule that the statute and regulations violated Coors's constitutional right to freedom of speech.
Consider the following questions as you read Chapter 3:
On which provision in the U.S. Constitution was Coors relying in its challenge of the statute and regulations?
Does a corporation such as Coors possess the same constitutional right to freedom of speech possessed by an individual human being, or does the government have greater latitude to restrict the content of a corporation's speech?
The alcohol content disclosures that Coors wished to make with regard to its product would be classified as commercial speech. Does commercial speech receive the same degree of constitutional protection that political or other noncommercial speech receives?
Which party—Coors or the federal government—won the case, and why?
Do producers and other sellers of alcoholic beverages have, in connection with the sale of their products, special ethical obligations that sellers of other products might not have? If so, what are those obligations and why do they exist?
