By B. PARKER JONE
Utah state officials are faced with a dilemma over the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that state prohibitions on liquor advertising is a violation of free-speech provisions granted by the First Amendment.
Utah law prohibits advertising or use of any means or media to encourage persons to buy liquor. The law was passed in 1990 to reduce the solicitation of alcohol to a minimum.
'I think (the ruling) raises serious doubts about the constitutionality of Utah's restrictions,' said First Amendment attorney Jeff Hunt in a May 27 Deseret News article. 'State officials are worried about it and they should be.'
Some Utah County bar managers have questioned the legitimacy of the 1990 law feeling that the influence of the LDS culture may have too much of an effect on lawmakers.
'I think advertising will influence people to drink a certain brand, but not just to consume alcohol,' Lemars Nightclub of Provo manager Mary Jo Hadley said.
'Utah should abolish some of these laws, but this state is run by a different type of government,' said a local bar manager who asked to not be identified. 'I don't know if there is a true separation of church and state here.'
Under Utah state law, displays in taverns and private clubs promoting alcoholic products are illegal if visible by persons off the premises. Many taverns statewide have escaped legal punishment by displaying the product's symbol not its name, Hadley said.
'We show product symbols on the outside window not brand names, but a lot of people do not recognize them,' Hadley said. 'I think the law hurts our business.'
Utah officials claim the 21st Amendment allows the state to enforce the sometimes-ridiculed liquor laws. The amendment gives states the power to regulate commerce and the use of alcohol. However, according to Supreme Court officials, the recent court ruling strictly states the 21st Amendment cannot overrule the first.
'The First Amendment directs us to be especially skeptical of regulations that seek to keep people in the dark for what the government perceives to be their own good,' wrote the justices in a public statement. 'Paternalistic assumption that the public will use truthful, misleading, commercial information unwisely cannot justify a decision to repress it.'
Officials at the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control were unavailable for comment. However, according to a May 27 Deseret News article, unidentified officials have stated there may be no way around the Supreme Court ruling