San Francisco Butts In; Tobacco Giant Sues

By Marisha Kelly

AP Photo/Jens Meyer


Philip Morris USA sued the City of San Francisco on Sept. 24 for enacting a law that would prohibit tobacco products from being sold in convenience drug stores, according to Firstamendmentcenter.org.

Asserting that its First Amendment rights to sell a legal product were being violated, the nation’s leading cigarette retailer went to Federal Court.

“Although called a ban on sales, the purpose and effect of the ordinance is to suppress communications directed to adult smokers, in violation of our constitutional rights,” said Joe Murillo, Altria Client Services vice president and associate general counsel, in a company announcement on the PM USA Web site. “Likewise, the ban unfairly deprives adult consumers of the opportunity to buy tobacco products from legitimate licensed retail businesses.”

The Supreme Court ruled in Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001) that the selling and use of tobacco products by adults is a legal act, even though the state holds substantial interest in preventing kids and teens from tobacco use.

PM USA requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the law from going into effect Oct. 1, according to an ABC Bay City News local report. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland rejected the TRO late on Sept. 26.

Walgreens requested an emergency injunction against the ban, which passed in July, in Superior Court. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Walgreens said the ban was discriminatory, affecting individual pharmacies but not "grocery stores or big-box stores that have pharmacies within them and also sell cigarettes."

New York Legislature passes the Libel Terrorism Protection Act

By Emmy Llewellyn

It all started when Saudi Arabian businessman, Khalid Salim a Bin Mahfouz, won a judgement in a defamation suit against Rachel Ehrenfeld, an author from the United States, in a British court. Previously, Bin Mahfouz has sued for libel 36 times in British courts, according to The Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press.
The bill was initiated when the New York Court of Appeals ruled that the state did not have "jurisdiction" over Bin Mahfouz when he won the suit against an American author in a British court.
This new law would help protect American journalists from these types of lawsuits in governments outside of the United States that do not offer the same freedoms that journalists get under our First Amendment.
This bill reinforces that the First Amendment protects our free speech values even when they are challenged on foreign soil.