Just a quick update. The judge's ruling came down today and he granted the MDH the temporary injunction against Bullseye. A minor setback there but a huge victory in that he did not rule that bars cannot have theatrical performances. As a matter of fact, he was very helpful in giving us direction as to how to have "theatrical performances". Thank you Judge! No need to worry...we just re-group and use the judge's direction that he gave us. We have always tried to do this legally from the start. The wheels are turning and this is not over yet. Greg has posted the judge's ruling on his website http://www.freedomtoact.com/ ...it's a good read. http://www.health.state.mn.us/news/pressrel/tobaccoruling051508.pdf Almost forgot....sorry MDH but it's only a small victory....we will have the larger victory in the end! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!!
Take Two....Action....Roll um!
Sheila, Mark, Robert
"Red Rant" addition. A few years ago I read the two books on the US Supreme Court case Cohen v Cowles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._Cowles_Media_Co or http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cohen+v+cowles The books were "Anonymous Source" by Dan Cohen and "The Taming of the Press" by Elliot C Rothenberg.
At the time The Minneapolis Star Tribune was part of Cowles Media. In the 1982 election, Dan Cohen, a Republican Consultant and former Minneapolis City Council president distributed legally obtained adult criminal information about then Democratic candidate for Lt Governor Marlene Johnson having an adult misdemeanor shoplifting conviction. Cohen distributed this to the media with explicit agreements that the source of this public information. The reporters agreed. This was overridden by higher ups at both newspapers. The reporters, to their credit, withheld their names from the bylines. As I recall, the Star Tribune brass reasoned that this was a "smear" (even though Johnson was a candidate and the information was both public and accurate) Again, as I recall, the "brass" who decided to override the reporter at the St. Paul Pioneer Press was a friend of Marlene Johnson. Cohen lost his job after he was "outed" as the source. Later, then Star Tribune columnist Doug Grow wrote a column about Dan Cohen getting a new job of at the U of MN. It was a few years ago that I read the books and related material but as I recall Grow criticised the U of MN for hiring a "smear artist lacking in ethics". (memory)
The Democratic team for governor of Perpich and Johnson won the 1982 Gubernatorial election by a wide margin so the misdemeanor shoplifting conviction would have been a minor "speed bump" if reported. Dan Cohen eventually got Rothenburg to take the case which went to the US Supreme Court where Cohen won over our two Twin Cities newspapers.
I'll be the first to admit that any legal precedent would be "a real stretch", I won't claim that. The case and it's history are worth examining for several reasons. First off, the case was taken to trial, and all appeals up to the US Supreme Court by a single lawyer literally working out of his basement, Elliot C Rothenberg. It's difficult, drawn out and time consuming but it can be done. The courts like to give the image that they are open to all, (especially when the case has public and media attention) so an "underdog" status can be useful.
Next off, the case "backfire" in a lot of ways. First off, line reporters saw their sources dry up because the line reporters could not guarantee that they as the source would not be "outed" even if the information is accurate, public and legal (typically this information is photocopy or a "paste" with a "look here" for verification in much the same way a link is given online if a quote comes from an article). On interesting aspect was the way, in subsequent appeals the "friend of the court" support of the newspapers was very weak. The prevailing opinion was that the local newspapers had made a very stupid move. In the case of the "smoke theater" the obvious question is why the MN legislature doesn't just reopen the so called "Freedom to breath Act" and amend or eliminate the theater exemption. After all, the bar theater first hit the news when the MN legislature had three and a half months left in the session. I'd estimate that more than 90% of Minneosta adults are aware of bars attempting the theater exemption. It's difficult to argue that legislators were unaware of the issue.
Politically, the Cowles v Cohen had several negative effects on the Democrats. First off there was the regular insinuation that if there was anything negative on Democrats the local newspapers would suppress the information and "punish" those who found this negative information. Thus, potential voters had to "read between the lines" about potential negative information. Thus a democratic candidate would, in effect have to publicly declare "I am not a crook!" to remove the pall of suspicion.
Next off there was the "slow drip" of news that continued during the adjudication of Cowles V Cohen. In an irony major appeal news occurred when Perpich and Johnson were again running and that may have helped contribute to their election loss. While this may not be directly applicable the "bar theater" legal fight will keep the so called "Freedom to breath" act in the news and in the public consciousness. (hint: It's an election year). From my observations (I try to talk to a large range of people about this) the strong "antis" tend to already politically committed so there are few new votes or other support there. (If there was why didn't the "anti" side amend the law during this legislative session.) On the "pro" side there is a greater political effect because most potential voters don't know how there elected representatives up for reelection voted on the so called "Freedom to Breath" act. Bars, especially, in their locality have the right and the ability to disseminate this information so long as it is "informational" and they don't try to tell people who to vote for.
Basically "sunlight" will not help the "anti" side.
Greg Lang
