Newsrack Ordinance Challenged in San Francisco

Six newspaper publishers challenged a San Francisco ordinance enacted in June 1998 that calls for the replacement of 12,000 freestanding newsracks with about 1,000 uniform fixed-pedestal stands or "pedmounts." The lawsuit, New Times, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, was filed in U.S. district court on Jan. 5.

The suit challenges the ordinance on a number of constitutional grounds. The suit charges, for example, that the ordinance requires publishers to engage in "forced speech" by requiring them to distribute papers through pedmounts "emblazoned with 18-square-foot advertisements selected by a third party and approved by the city." The ordinance also restricts the right to distribute newspapers and the public's right of access to newspapers, the publishers contend.

In addition, the ordinance fails to provide for "constitutionally required procedural safeguards," such as a time frame for city officials to act on permit applications and prompt judicial review of permit denials, the publishers say.

In Pittsburgh, meanwhile, city councilman Richard Hertzberg dropped his newsrack regulation bill after a Jan. 28 public hearing at which newspaper officials and their attorneys voiced objections. The measure had "constitutional, practical, and philosophical problems," said E.J. Strassburger, an attorney for the Tribune-Review. Hertzberg said he planned to introduce a revised bill in early February. -- David L. Hudson, Jr.

FDA To Reconsider Dietary Supplement Claims

The FDA must explain what it means by "significant scientific agreement" before it denies approval for health claims on dietary supplement labels, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled on Jan. 15. Supplement marketers Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw had sought FDA approval for four separate health claims concerning the benefits of antioxidant vitamins, fiber, omega-3 fatty acids, and folic acid. The FDAÕs rejection of their claims was upheld by the U.S. District Court for the D.C. Circuit. But the appellate court reversed, agreeing with the marketers that the "significant scientific agreement" standard was too vague. The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to remand to the FDA for reconsideration of the four health claims.

ATF Okays Wine Labels About Health Effects

After a seven-year struggle with government regulators, vintners may now label their products with one of two messages that refer to the health effects of wine consumption. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms on Feb. 5 approved two labels: one that invites consumers to obtain a government nutrition publication that mentions the health effects, and another that states: "The proud people who made this wine encourage you to consult your family doctor about the health effects of wine consumption."

Steven G. Brody, Esq.
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
New York
212-504-6000

Robert Corn-Revere, Esq.
Hogan & Hartson
Washington, D.C.
202-637-5600

P. Cameron DeVore, Esq.
Davis Wright Tremaine
Seattle
206-622-3150

David L. Hudson, Jr., Esq.
The First Amendment Center
Nashville
615-342-0317

Daniel L. Jaffe
Executive Vice President
Association of National Advertisers
Washington, D.C.
202-626-7800

John Kamp
Senior Vice President
American Association of Advertising Agencies
Washington, D.C.
202-331-7345

Paul McMasters
First Amendment Ombudsman
The Freedom Forum
Arlington, Va.
703-284-3511

Prof. Robert M. O'Neil
Founding Director
The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression
Charlottesville, Va.
804-295-4784

Dr. Craig R. Smith
President
Freedom of Expression Foundation
Long Beach, Calif.
562-434-2284

Daniel E. Troy, Esq.
Wiley, Rein & Fielding
Washington, D.C.
202-828-7550

John J. Walsh, Esq.
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft
New York
212-504-6000

Prof. Harvey Zuckman
Director
Institute for Communications
Law Studies
Catholic University of America
Washington, D.C.
202-319-5000