On Fri, Jul 11, 1997 at 11:28:39AM -0700, Tim May wrote:
At 12:48 AM -0700 7/11/97, Kent Crispin wrote: ...
Hmmm. I thought the basis was completely different. I thought the deal was between legal officials of various states who were mounting suits against the tobacco companies, and the tobacco companies. That is, it is essentially an "out of court" settlement of a civil lawsuit.
As such, it would indeed not be binding on Tim May's Tobacco Co. And there are no particular constitutional issues involved, or free speech issues, either, come to think of it -- the settlement is just between the parties of a civil suit.
The agreement halts future lawsuits, thus depriving those who have not yet sued, or even those who have not yet contemplated suing, from seeking redress in the courts.
I don't think it is correct that the deal halts future lawsuits from other parties, only from the signers of the deal.
This would seem to be a rather major constitutional issue.
Not really. It would just be unconstitutional, and almost certainly thrown out. I don't think the lawyers involved are that stupid. By getting the major tobacco companies to an essentially private agreement they have achieved their goals -- it would be silly to depend on a fickle, money-hungry congress to pass some laws to enforce it.
It's also unclear whether the "agreement" covers tobacco companies not even extant at this time (hence my use of the "Tim's Tobacco Company" example, where TTC is incorporated in 1998 and begins advertising with Joe Camel-type ads. Several states attorneys general have opinined that the deal means a complete end to such advertising, to sponsorship of sporting events by tobacco companies, etc.
As a practical matter, yes. As a matter of law, no. TTC isn't going to be sponsoring tennis tournaments any time soon, I trust? It's *big* tobacco that is under attack here -- the small fry don't matter.
BTW, we're not the only ones who think this agreement, and the enabling legislation which is supposed to come from Congress, raise very serious constitutional questions.
Could you find a reference to this putative enabling legislation? I think it is a figment of somebody's imagination. My impression was that the "stick" wasn't new legislation, but rather the imminent regulation of nicotine as a drug. There *may* be such legislation in the works, but it seems completely unnecessary for the anti-tobacco forces to accomplish their aims, and, in fact, a stupid thing to depend on.
The problem may lie in class action suits in general.
Completely different issue, I believe, one I would not care to argue either way. [...]
There are indeed deep constitutional issues involved in both of the cases being discussed in this thread.
There may be some constitutional issues in the ratings issue, but all I have seen on this thread so far is speculation about issues that *might* be present. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55 http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html