Law Essay Sample on the Case: Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated vs. Schmoke (1995)

Facts: Baltimore enacted the Ordinance 288, which proscribed the issue of al fresco advertising of all alcoholic beverages on prescribed regions in the City. The ban also included the exception, which allowed the beverages to be advertised in certain regions in Baltimore City.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Issue: Does Ordinance 288 challenge the constitutional rights under the First Amendment of the outdoor fixed advertisements of the alcohol beverage in the cities where children are more prone to play?

Holding: No: The Ordinance is within the constitutional rights.

Majority Reasoning: (District Court)

Rule: the Baltimore City asserts that the Ordinance is constitutional because the Ordinance sought to advance directly the interests of the City in enhancing the well-being of its residents and protecting the well-being of the minors.

Two counter reasoning arguments from the Anheuser-Busch, Inc. came up.

No constitutional authority on the face of the Ordinance since it fails to directly progress the opinion of the government in supporting the interests of children.

There is no relationship between the alcohol beverages advertisements and underage usage of the beverages.

As indicated, the Ordinance is to deny the noncommercial speech. The purpose of the advert is to underscore the loyalty of the brands being publicized.

Analysis: The Ordinance enacted by the mayor is within the Constitution. Anheuser-Busch, Incorporated feels that their rights to advertise freely are infringed yet they fail to register any precaution and caution related to the publication of their products. This is irrespective of the age limit of the consumers. They also fail to give an alternative method of curbing the influence of the billboards to children. Even though the company feels that their democratic rights are infringed, the city does not undermine any rights and as such allows the interested parties to consider the interests of the minor residents in the location as well. This implies that the decree does not ban the public advertisement of the alcoholic drinks within the city. However, it restricts the places and the manner of advertisements. As such, the beverage companies can still exercise their freedom of advertising their products in other media such as the magazines. The challenge, in this case, lies in the regulation where Anheuser-Busch purports that the interests of the government are not considered. Baltimore City should also prove that the speech guideline is narrowly limited.

Conclusion: The federal Constitution rightly supports the ordinance considered in Baltimore. The reasons given in upholding the decree is constitutional, in light of managing the increasing cases of alcohol abuse among children. I assent to the rulings given in this case that minors should not take part in alcohol consumption. The judgment approves that the adverts are not misleading but limits the limits the places for the promotion of the products for the sake of young children. Under the Baltimore law, it is prohibited to publicly advertise alcoholic beverages in open and visible places where children are likely to play or go school. This regulation is set to develop the interest of the state in protecting the Constitutional rights of the children. The decision conforms to the Supreme Court's identification of children inability to evaluate comprehensively any information they acquire through commercial media. As such, the decree is to ensure that children are properly placed in the marketplace ideas.