text:
Rising Fear of Government Regulation
In the early 1970s, even as the tobacco industry was continuing its efforts to develop a safe cigarette (see chapter 4), it was feeling increasingly threatened by possible government regulation. As the ensuing discussion indicates, there were many areas of regulatory activity and the industry adopted various measures to forestall further regulation or at least to counter its effects.
A February 14, 1973, memo, marked "Confidential," from Ernest Pepples, assistant general counsel at B&W, to J. V. Blalock, director of public relations, asks for news clippings relating to "salient problems now facing the cigarette industry" {1814.01}.
The first concern is "Cancer." More specifically, the author sees three threats posed by the activities of the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society.
Second on the list is "The Attack on Heart and Lung Diseases":
This newly authorized program, associated with the Heart and Lung Foundation ... contains the same seeds of difficulty for the tobacco industry. The
same forces and considerations for quick and easy solutions are at work in this area. The new law setting up this program also provides for an assistant director for health information who could easily seize upon an anti-smoking campaign to establish an activist record. {1814.01, p. 2}
The third salient problem listed is "Jurisdiction over Tobacco":
Renewed efforts will be made to include tobacco in the list of products coming under control of the Food and Drug Administration, the new Product Safety Commission, or the proposed Consumer Protection Agency. Should any of these efforts succeed, the industry would be seriously harmed since tobacco would fall under the same category as cyclamates. {1814.01, p. 2}
Cyclamates, artificial sweeteners that were regulated as food additives, were a then-current example of a material that had been banned from foods by the FDA because of animal evidence of carcinogenicity at high doses. The statement in the memo probably indicates concern that even though, according to the industry, the poisons in tobacco smoke were dangerous only in high doses, tobacco would suffer the same fate as cyclamates. Saccharine, another artificial sweetener, had similar, but less compelling, evidence against it, but it has been permitted to remain in the food supply with a warning label.
Fourth on the list is "Passive Smoking":
The anti-smoking lobby is using the issue of the alleged health effect of smoking on the non-smoker to generate media publicity. This trend has been growing since 1970. It received prestigious support when the [Supreme Court] Chief Justice [Warren Burger] made a public display of his annoyance with tobacco smoke on a passenger train. Similarly, the current issue before the CAB [Civil Aeronautics Board] regarding smoking on airliners is also part of the same campaign. There is no medical evidence concerning the health effects of passive smoking. The real purpose [of the anti-smoking lobby] is symbolic to make smoking socially unacceptable and by limiting the public areas where it is permitted. {1814.01, p. 2}
By the early 1970s, then—when the first systematic studies on the respiratory effects of passive smoking on children were just beginning to appear and nearly a decade before the first papers implicating passive smoking as a cause of lung cancer were published—B&W had identified passive smoking as an important issue. (See chapter 10 for a full discussion of passive smoking.)
The fifth item is headed "Implications of Biological Research." Here the author expresses concern about the publication of a study by W. Dontenwill and co-workers (1) funded by the German tobacco industry. The
study demonstrated that inhaled smoke produced laryngeal cancer in Syrian golden hamsters:
There is the likelihood that the Dontenwill work will be published in the U.S.A., and implied in this work are directions for product modification. This approach has some support by anti-smoking scientists in the U.S.A. and is likely to lead to political pressure of the industry to change products. Actions by foreign manufacturers will have effect in the U.S.A. {1814.01 pp. 2–3}
"Addiction" is also a problem:
Some emphasis is now being placed on the habit-forming capacities of cigarette smoke. To some extent the argument revolving around "free choice" is being negated on the grounds of addiction. The threat is that this argument will increase significantly and lead to further restrictions on product specifications and greater danger in litigation [emphasis added]. {1814.01, p. 3}
Finally, "Excise Taxation" is listed as a concern because:
It appears that the anti-smoking groups may find that one of the most successful methods of reducing the use of tobacco products will be the enactment of a high rate taxation on such products, since by this method tobacco products can be priced at a level so as to place the product beyond the financial reach of many consumers. {1814.01, p. 3}
That "many consumers" may be a euphemism for young people is illustrated by the following excerpt from the instructions for the document review project conducted by the law firm of Wyatt, Tarrant & Coombs for B&W (see chapter 1):
If a document discusses or contains testimony of an industry representative speaking at a proceeding, it will receive a significance of "1" unless the issues being discussed are not related to smoking and health (e.g., fire-safe cigarettes). (Excise taxes are related to smoking and health, because taxes influence the price of cigarettes. The price affects the ability of young people to buy cigarettes ) [italic emphasis added]. {1000.01, p. 28}
There is also a second concern relating to excise taxation:
A second basis for attack appears to be the introduction of legislation providing for a tax level graduated on the basis of tar and nicotine content. {1814.01, p. 3}
Indeed, New York City had enacted such a tax in 1971, and just a few months after this memo was written, a New York County trial court upheld the validity of the tax and the accompanying administrative regulation requiring that cigarette prices reflect the amounts of tax
attributable to the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes sold [Long Island Tobacco Co., Inc. v Lindsay 343 N.Y.S.2d 759 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1973)]. The court stated that the regulation was "clearly designed to preclude the seller from absorbing the tax and to discourage through higher prices the consumer's use of cigarettes with relatively higher levels of tar and nicotine" [at 763]. This case was subsequently affirmed without opinion by New York State's highest court, the Court of Appeals [Long Island Tobacco Co., Inc. v Lindsay, 313 N.E.2d 794 (N.Y. 1974)]. In 1976 a bill was introduced in Congress to tax cigarettes on the basis of tar and nicotine content.
Clearly, the author of this list of concerns (probably Pepples) was quite accurate about most of the items, and twenty years after the list was compiled, much of it is still relevant. While the scientific issues surrounding cancer and heart and lung diseases have long since been settled, and the industry barely makes a pretense of contesting the existence of these health problems, the addiction issue (in part because of the exposure of the documents discussed in this book) has become the new battleground. Whereas, in all the intervening time, jurisdiction over the industry by the listed federal agencies never materialized, it has now become a distinct possibility because of the addiction issue. (The FDA, however, had started to raise questions about nicotine addiction several months before these and related documents began to surface in the press in mid-1994.) The author of the list of concerns correctly forecast the problems to the industry from the passive smoking issue and the increase in excise taxes, but it is doubtful that, in his wildest dreams, he actually foresaw the enormous cost to the industry from the emerging nonsmokers' rights movement, both in actual dollars and as an influence on the public perception of smoking. It should also be noted that, while the industry has always fought even minimal increases in tobacco excise taxes, it has consistently raised the prices of tobacco products, often well beyond the rate of inflation.
Ten years later, three areas of regulatory concern—smoking in the workplace, the treatment of grass-roots lobbying, and fire-safe cigarettes—were the subject of a memorandum by R. H. Sachs, reporting on a meeting held on December 8, 1983, by the Committee of Counsel (a Tobacco Institute committee consisting of the chief counsels of the member tobacco companies).
Smoking in the Workplace —We discussed the draft of a model ordinance prepared by C&B [the law firm of Covington and Burling]. [Stanley] Temko [an attorney at Covington and Burling] lamented that suggestion to add language for some sort of "equal accommodation" for smokers was difficult. [Roger
L.] Mozingo [Tobacco Institute vice president] does not need the model ordinance at present. {2220.01, p. 2}
This memorandum was written just one month after the tobacco industry had suffered a major defeat by the passage of Proposition P in San Francisco, a referendum that ratified a city ordinance requiring that nonsmokers be protected from secondhand smoke in office workplaces (2). Numerous cities throughout the country were asking for copies of the ordinance so that they could replicate it, and the "model ordinance" referred to in the memorandum was undoubtedly being drafted by the industry as a countermeasure. The industry typically presents its own sham versions of nonsmokers' rights laws when faced with the possible enactment of meaningful legislation.
The memorandum also discusses the possible use of scientific studies on this subject:
Shook, Hardy [and Bacon, an industry law firm] reported on a Swedish case wherein descendants of a lung cancer victim were awarded compensation because of prolonged exposure to tobacco smoke at work. (I talked to Morini about this case. He was aware of it, and is presently checking it out.)
A settlement agreement is near in the Lee case (Mass.) [an action by a state employee seeking a smoke-free workplace, that was settled favorably for the employee] and an accommodation has been worked out in the Orange County (Cal.) case [reference unclear].
There was a deep split of opinion with respect to commissioning scientific studies, using Battelle, with respect to smoking in the workplace. B&W and Lorillard are in favor of proceeding. ATCo. [American Tobacco Company] is strongly against it. RJR [R. J. Reynolds] and PM [Philip Morris] both expressed grave reservations but were not in a position to give a final answer. It looks like it's dead. {2220.01, p. 2}
This discussion appears to relate to work that Battelle (a contract research organization) was conducting on secondhand-smoke levels in workplaces. Battelle had been funded to do this work through CTR Special Account 4 (discussed in chapter 8) during 1981–83, so the work appears to have been halted (the memorandum is from December 1983). Since Special Account 4 was administered by the law firm of Jacob, Medinger, and Finnegan, perhaps expenditures could have been made even if not all the tobacco companies agreed on a given project.
The tobacco industry's evolving grass-roots lobbying effort also commanded comment in the same memorandum:
Tax Treatment of Grass Roots Lobbying —Temko reported that the Treasury is still reviewing this issue and that it is conceivable that new regulations could be issued in the Spring. C&B will keep an eye on it. {2220.01, p. 2}
The tobacco industry has responded to the growing (and genuine) nonsmokers' rights movement (discussed in chapter 10) by conducting its own grass-roots lobbying through so-called "smokers' rights" organizations (3–5). The tobacco industry's serious interest in this issue is yet another indication of how important and large an effort the industry was anticipating.
Another item in the list of concerns related to fires caused by cigarettes when they were inadvertently left to burn on a combustible surface, such as bedding or other furniture. Although a few cigarette brands have been found to be relatively fire-safe (including a B&W brand, Capri), in that they will either self-extinguish before igniting furniture or will not burn hotly enough to ignite an adjoining surface, most brands are not fire-safe. As a result, cigarette-caused fires are the leading cause of fire deaths in the United States. There have been various attempts at both the state and federal levels to legislate a requirement that cigarettes be fire-safe, but none has succeeded. In 1984 Congress passed a bill sponsored by Congressman Joseph Moakley (D-MA) that established a three-year research committee, the Technical Study Group, to determine whether a fire-safe cigarette was technically and economically feasible. In 1987 the committee submitted its unanimous conclusion that such a cigarette was feasible. Then, in 1990, another bill by Congressman Moakley established a new committee, the Technical Advisory Group, to oversee the development of a test method for determining whether or not a cigarette is fire-safe. In August 1993, on an 11-to-4 vote (the four tobacco company representatives being in the minority), the committee reported to Congress that it had developed a sufficient test. Thus, the requirement that cigarettes be made fire-safe awaits only congressional regulatory action. It is in this context that the discussion of this issue in the memorandum should be read:
Fire Safe Cigarettes —John Rupp (from Covington & Burling) reported that we are gaining some support from within the International Association of Fire Chiefs. In the past they have supported Congressman Moakley's bill [to require "fire-safe" cigarettes]. This year, after hearing a presentation from the tobacco industry, led by Dr. [Alexander] Spears from Lorillard, IAFC set up a committee to reconsider their position. The efforts we have put behind building a relationship with the organization may be paying off.
The companies agreed to proceed with an industry examination of ignition propensity in order to develop a model for a testing methodology. Scientists from each company will meet to discuss this. Covington & Burling will provide counsel at these meetings for the purpose of antitrust oversight.
Rupp reported on efforts to get a meeting with Moakley to see if there is any way to reconcile our position. There are two troublesome areas: federal
preemption and trade secret confidentiality. On the first issue, our position has been to push for "perpetual" preemption. Rupp and others think this is unrealistic. Moakley has accepted the idea of some federal preemption and Rupp would like to see us accept 18 months after publication of the study. He is also seeking more flexibility on the trade secrets issue. He mentioned allowing information to be turned over to permanent Congressional committees "with some safeguards". Rupp would like to hear from each of the companies on this by the middle of next week. {2220.01, p. 1}
Whereas one might think that an association of fire chiefs would be the least likely organization to inhibit fire safety legislation, there is evidence to the contrary. The "efforts" expended to build a relationship between the industry and the fire chiefs consisted of the payment of money to provide services for the organization. Indeed, during the 1980s the tobacco industry provided millions of dollars in grants, equipment, and public relations services to the fire chiefs' association, other firefighter organizations, and numerous individual fire departments around the country, to enlist their support in opposing meaningful legislation regarding fire-safe cigarettes (6).
The legislation surrounding fire-safe cigarettes is another example of how the tobacco industry uses preemption as a general political strategy to limit its political exposure and liability. Preemption at a federal or state level protects the tobacco industry broadly from local activities, over which they have less control. Moreover, obtaining preemption only requires action by a relatively few powerful members of Congress or a state legislature, as opposed to dealing with a plethora of local jurisdictions. Indeed, as discussed later in this chapter, by the late 1960s the tobacco industry had accepted mild federal warning labels on tobacco packages, and, later, bans on radio and television advertising, in order to preempt possible state action with respect to consumer warnings and limits on tobacco advertising (7). The tobacco industry still uses preemption as a major strategy today, particularly in the effort to stop passage of local laws requiring smoke-free workplaces and public places.
Strategies To Defeat Government Regulation
As the threat of government regulation of tobacco increased on several fronts, the tobacco industry developed several strategies for counteracting government action. The principal strategy was simply to create as much controversy as possible over the link between smoking and disease (see chapter 8). Beyond this, the industry also developed specific meth-
ods for minimizing the impact of legislation aimed at smoking itself (such as the requirements for warning labels and the disclosure of the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes) and legislation aimed at limiting smoking in public places and the workplace.
In 1976 Ernest Pepples, B&W's vice president and general counsel, composed a long, thoughtful analysis of the smoking and health controversy, entitled "Industry Response to the Cigarette/Health Controversy." Pepples begins by noting the means by which the industry has coped with the smoking and health controversy:
The tobacco industry has reacted to the challenge of the smoking and health controversy in the following ways:
The fact that Pepples regarded filters and low tar as responses to the "smoking and health controversy" (item 1) contrasts with the industry's public stance that these innovations were made in response to "consumer demand" and had nothing to do with health. This memo is an explicit acknowledgment that these things did have everything to do with health. Tying the two together leads to the conclusion that filters and low tar have to do with health concerns of consumers, and to the extent that the innovations allayed concern without providing protection, they are public relations devices for a public health problem.
Pepples then spells out the role of the Tobacco Institute, the industry's trade organization, and the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR), the entity established by the industry purportedly to do independent scientific research on the health effects of smoking (see chapter 2):
The Tobacco Institute, founded in 1958, has been the focal point for criticism of research that indicates a connection between smoking and health. The Institute has attempted to keep the opposition honest. It has carefully scrutinized the sampling difficulties and statistical deficiencies in the studies which allegedly indicate correlations between smoking and disease. The Institute
also has vigorously opposed governmental control of the marketing of cigarettes. This rearguard action has bought time in which the companies could adapt to the challenge, i.e. change themselves (through diversification) and change their products.
The Council for Tobacco Research (CTR) has dispersed over $26 million through 1973. During the past 20 years the industry has committed more than $50 million to scientific research related to tobacco and health. In December 1972, five cigarette companies including Brown & Williamson gave a $2.8 million grant to the Harvard Medical School for a 5-year investigation of any specific effects cigarette smoke may have in the development of lung and heart diseases. In 1967, over $12 million was spent in the United States on smoking and health research. In 1968, the figure increased to over $15 million.
The significant expenditures on the question of smoking and health have allowed the industry to take a respectable stand along the following lines—
"After millions of dollars and over twenty years of research, the question about smoking and health is still open " [emphasis added]. {2205.01, pp. 1–2}
Pepples viewed CTR as a means of keeping the "controversy" alive, although the industry maintained publicly that CTR was an independent organization whose purpose was to determine whether smoking is causally linked to disease. In essence, therefore, the industry was spending millions of dollars on research so that it could make the single statement that "the question about smoking and health is still open."
The Tobacco Institute also was used for the purpose of prolonging the "controversy." The instructions for B&W's document review project show that the lawyers were sensitive to this issue:
Documents discussing or containing public statements made by TI [the Tobacco Institute] in its role as spokesman for the tobacco industry. Pay special attention to documents suggesting that TI was used as a vehicle for the industry's alleged conspiracy to promote cigarettes through the "open controversy" PR program; that industry-sponsored smoking and health research was used for PR; or that the industry monitored governmental expenditures on research to make certain the industry outspent the government on research [emphasis added]. (1001.01, p. 32}
In "Industry Response to the Cigarette/Health Controversy," Pepples also discusses the strategy of preemption.
The tobacco industry wanted to prevent the chaos of nonuniform state and local regulation such as affects the alcohol industry. To gain one crucial costsaving objective, uniform regulation, the industry compromised by adding a health warning to the cigarette package. Another critic noted that "the label might even be a boon of sorts, providing a new defense for the industry" when
new health suits were brought by persons claiming to have been injured by cigarette smoking.
The broadcast ban which was enacted by Congress in 1969 called for the elimination of all TV and radio cigarette advertising after January 1, 1971 as well as strengthening the cautionary statement. The bill extended the preemption of state and/or local health regulation until June 1971. The tobacco industry did not oppose the 1969 or the 1965 enactments [requiring warning labels on cigarettes] which were in some ways victories [emphasis added]. {2205.01, p. 6}
Indeed, the tobacco industry testified in favor of the federal broadcast ban on cigarette advertising in July 1969.
Pepples concludes his 1976 analysis with a discussion of the implications for the tobacco industry of the disjointed nature of the federal government's regulatory authorities:
Some Conclusions and Observations
The foregoing discussion illustrates that the federated nature of the U.S. political system and the fragmentation of governmental authority and administrative responsibility are important in determining the type of governmental response.
The Congress is not staffed adequately nor is it properly structured to deal on a comprehensive basis with the medical aspects of the smoking controversy.
The independent regulatory bodies in the United States have been established to accomplish government regulation in technical areas. The FTC [Federal Trade Commission], FCC [Federal Communications Commission] and FCPSC [Federal Consumer Product Safety Commission] have been on very doubtful statutory ground in treating the smoking/health issue. They have been slowed by the limits in the procedures found in their statutory charter. As a result broad consideration of the smoking/health problem has been made difficult. Compared with public agencies in other countries they have been relatively free, however, to respond to the problem.
The FTC and FCC actions in this area have been unexpected and precedent-setting. They have mainly stemmed from the efforts of individual personalities. While the agencies have taken a high profile attitude, they have not had the power to act on issues of this type which lie outside their expertise and outside their legislative mandates. Congress has not extended their mandates to deal with the smoking/health problem and in fact has expressly prevented proposed agency actions from taking effect. In addition to the FTC, FCC and FCPSC the Departments of Agriculture, Treasury and Health, Education and Welfare have all dealt with portions of the total picture. A disjointed nature of governmental response has been augmented by the multiplicity of possible places where the action could occur [emphasis added]. {2205.01, pp. 6–7}
Pepples is saying, in effect, that Congress should not play a major role in tobacco control but should leave it up to an agency that is properly
structured. When discussing potential regulatory agencies, he does not mention the FDA.
Pepples continues:
Each agency is affected by interest group pressures that oppose compromise and cooperation with its opponents. For example, U.S. tobacco price supports and export subsidies are two programs (the latter begun after the Surgeon General's Report) that have been criticized as being in direct conflict with the government's smoking and health program. Also in Britain the Exchequer has been notably reluctant to give up tobacco taxes from cigarette smokers.
The oversight by Congress of its departments is not effective in resolving differences between departments. Each pressure group struggles to define the issue in its own terms so that the goals and actions of government will be congruent with its desires. The Treasury has sought to collect revenues, Agriculture has sought to maintain and increase employment, income and productivity of farmers while the health interests have sought to reduce disease. The antismoking forces were able to gain a foothold in the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration], FCC and FTC and in the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The fact that one hand of the government does one thing and another hand does something quite different reflects the division of authority and responsibility which has made each agency vulnerable to the narrow interests of particular pressure groups [emphasis added]. {2205.01, p. 7}
There is a certain irony in Pepples's complaint about the multitude of government agencies involved in regulating tobacco and their disjointed efforts. Had a single federal agency been given the power to regulate tobacco in a comprehensive manner, its coordinated approach might well have resulted in much stricter control of tobacco. Had regulation been consistent, we would not have had federal price supports for tobacco growers, and tobacco exports would not have been subsidized under the Food for Peace program along with programs to discourage smoking.
Pepples continues,
Smoking and health as a political issue has been unpopular with all but a few politicians regardless of political party persuasions or country. Not only have strong economic interest groups opposed government action but a substantial portion of adult population indulge in the habit and derive significant pleasure from the use of the product. While it is reasonable to assume that the public desires good health, it is not reasonable to assume that the public at large and especially the cigarette smoking public is favorable toward antismoking measures that entail giving up the pleasures of smoking. {2205.01, p. 7}
These views were supported by decades of experience. However, not long after this paper was written, some politicians, particularly at the local level, began to take up the cause of nonsmokers' rights and to react favorably to the idea of restrictions on public smoking.
Pepples, moreover, miscalculated the reaction of smokers to restrictions on public smoking. Polls over the past twenty years have consistently shown majority support among smokers for such restrictions. Many smokers view limitations on smoking as a way to help them quit, or at least reduce their consumption, and many also understand the need to control tobacco smoke pollution for the sake of others.
Pepples next discusses the impact of the efforts to regulate cigarette advertising on cigarette consumption:
So far government efforts to regulate cigarette advertising have constituted the main thrust of government concern and the aggressive antismoking lobby is highly dissatisfied with the impact such efforts have had on total consumption. (The following page [not in the documents] shows in chart form the general upward trend in cigarette sales but suggests a significant loss of volume due to political factors.) The reduction in cigarette advertising seems to have made the industry stronger economically. Profits have increased. The ban on television and other broadcast advertising does not seem to have reduced consumption. The concomitant reduction in the number of anti-cigarette commercials is considered to be a severe loss in the effort to keep public concern and awareness of the controversy at a fever pitch [emphasis added]. {2205.01, p. 8}
Pepples then specifies the legitimate government role in regulating tobacco as a public health problem.
Like the meat industry [because of muckrakers who demanded USDA regulation early in the century] and recently the automobile industry [because of Ralph Nader], tobacco products are now coming under close scrutiny and governments are attempting to establish control over the products, as opposed to merely the advertising, to protect the public .
The warnings, the tar and nicotine ratings and the anti-cigarette commercials were all part of the effort to educate children and cigarette consumers not to smoke. Implicit in the policy of education is the idea that the consumers should make the basic decision and will make the "right" decision, provided they are given "more knowledge." In short, inform the public, and rely on an informed public to change the pattern of consumption. The government has not yet intervened directly to change the content of the product or limit its use. The protection of nonsmokers also has become an important and growing focus of the antismoking lobby with the announced purpose of making cigarette smoking an unacceptable social custom which they compare to spitting . At least 26 bills have been added to some 70 antismoking proposals in state legislatures for action in 1976, involving 26 states. Characteristically these measures would restrict the places where smoking may lawfully occur.
It is clear, however, that many anti-cigarette zealots and some public officials believe that the responsibility of the government does not end with merely warning the public of the hazards. They advocate direct intervention. Senators [Edward] Kennedy (D-MA) and [Gary] Hart [D-CO] recently [in
1976] proposed a health research bill to be financed by a tax related to the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes. At about the same time, the British Minister of Health announced on national television that he intended to lay an order before Parliament bringing additives and substitutes under the Medicines Act, which order must be approved by resolution of each House.
The tobacco industry, of course, would prefer no regulation at all. If there must be regulation, the industry is probably better off to have it at the federal level than be forced to fight off a multitude of nonuniform regulatory efforts at the state, county and town levels. Even expanded regulatory efforts may be shaped by the industry to enhance stability in the market or by individual manufacturers to bolster market positions—for example, by capitalizing on official tar and nicotine ratings in cigarette advertising.
The manufacturers' marketing strategy has been to overcome and even to make marketing use of the smoking/health connection. Individual tobacco companies have benefited from government actions. Thus the "tar derby" in the United States resulted from industry efforts to cater to the public's concern and to attract consumers to the new filtered brands. The heavy use of television in the introduction of WINCHESTER [a cigarette-like little cigar made by R. J. Reynolds] represented a bald exploitation of the little cigar loophole in the broadcast ban law. The current duel between TRUE and VANTAGE and between CARLTON and NOW are other examples of competitive efforts to capitalize on the smoking/health controversy.
Market conditions are important in determining company response. In a rapidly changing cigarette market, it is difficult to obtain industry cooperation because cooperation tends to affect individual firms unevenly [emphasis added]. {2205.01, pp. 8–9}
In effect, preemption allowed the industry to accept certain defeats, while at the same time limiting the damage. Indeed, as Pepples noted, the radio and television advertising ban, which might have appeared at first to be a crippling blow to the industry, actually turned into an unforeseen advantage. As important as preemption was to the industry with respect to the issues discussed by Pepples in 1976, it was to become an even more crucial tactic for the industry in its battle against legislation regulating environmental tobacco smoke. In that battle the industry has focused on passing weak laws at the state level (where the industry has great political clout) that preempt stronger ordinances passed by cities and counties (where industry influence is relatively weak).
Legal Challenges To Regulation
On August 14, 1978, Ernest Pepples sent a "Privileged" memorandum to several high executives at the company regarding a paper entitled "Up from the Bombshelter," which was written by Charles Morgan, a noted
civil rights attorney in the 1960s, who later represented the tobacco industry. Although the documents include only a tiny fragment of the paper, we know from those fragments and from Pepples's memo that Morgan believed the industry should adopt aggressive legal measures to challenge government regulation of tobacco. For example, at one point, Morgan states:
We recommend the initiation of litigation to strike down legislation which forbids private property owners to allow free and unrestricted assembly by smokers in their businesses, restaurants, hotels, bars, stores, and similar facilities. {2211.01, p. 57}
Pepples explained that the paper had been reviewed and discussed by the Committee of Counsel, a Tobacco Institute committee consisting of the chief counsel of the tobacco companies, and by Horace Kornegay, then president of the institute, and that the memo dealt "with the main currents of the deliberations arising from [the] paper" {2210.01}.
In his analysis of Morgan's paper, Pepples notes:
Although some of the specific recommendations in Morgan's paper seem impractical, there is already wide agreement with one of his underlying ideas; namely, that now it has become timely for the industry to adopt a more aggressive stance in objection to some of the anti-industry measures being proposed. {2210.01}
Pepples then explains that challenging the Federal Trade Commission's attempts to impose further restrictions on cigarette advertising is a worthwhile endeavor because the industry has a reasonable chance of prevailing and there is "genuine value to be gained by winning":
The hard part is to find the right thing to stand and fight about and the right time and place to do so. The FTC wants to do something more about cigarette advertising because the display of the health warning in advertising has not been sufficiently "effective." By effective the FTC means a reduction in sales of cigarettes. The Commission attack will be founded on the now familiar premise that cigarette advertising tends to overcome the effect of the Surgeon General's warning and in so doing the advertising amounts to an unfair practice within the meaning of Section 5 of the FTC Act.
We can fight on that battlefield. We have a good argument and we will not be alone. The First Amendment issue is raised by the attempts to regulate the commercial expression on the vague ground of "unfairness." Here the FTC goes far beyond the familiar notions of falsity, deceit and misrepresentation. There is no lie or deceit present in cigarette advertising, whether you view the words alone or as a whole with the imagery. The FTC has to make its case in the mushy area of "unfairness." While "unfairness" under the Act may prove a flexible tool in regulating conduct, such as bait-and-switch
practices, the attempts to use it for the expansive regulation of the substance of expression contained in advertising runs right up against First Amendment considerations.
Another important legal issue concerns the res judicata effect to be given to the 1972 Consent Order under which the Surgeon General's warning is required in cigarette advertising. The Consent Order was based on a broadranging complaint that covers almost all of what the Commission is likely to come up with the next time around. Whatever legal validity and strength the FTC contentions in that complaint may have had, they should be taken as settled and not be open for relitigation time and time again [emphasis in original]. {2210.01, pp. 1–2}
Res judicata is a legal term meaning, literally, a thing that is definitely settled by judicial decision. When that is the case, the issue—in this instance the effect of the Surgeon General's warning—may not be opened up again by the same court or another court. Thus, Pepples is saying that the 1972 Consent Order settled all the issues relevant to the order and that the FTC contentions surrounding the order should receive no further hearing.
These are "good" legal issues, there is a reasonable chance of prevailing, and there is a great deal of genuine value to be gained by winning. Moreover the issues are sufficiently basic and of broad applicability that the industry will not necessarily be standing out there alone. For example, as to the First Amendment issue the makers of sugared cereals are already locked in battle, and the beer industry may soon be, on some of the same grounds as those that will be of concern to the cigarette industry. {2210.01, p. 2}
However, there were two important areas of concern that the attorneys did not believe were worth pursuing, despite Morgan's recommendations. The first of these was the ban on broadcast advertising on cigarettes, which the attorneys believed could not be challenged successfully on constitutional grounds and, in any event, was not worth fighting about:
He [Morgan] also says that the time is right for attacking the broadcast ban on cigarette advertising, again resting his arguments in the federal constitution.
With respect to Morgan's ideas about the broadcast ban, the First Amendment issues are theoretically interesting. The ban is a clear restriction of expression. The Court has recently affirmed that commercial forms of expression are protected by the First Amendment. But we are the wrong industry and this is the wrong issue on which to try to enlarge on this new-found constitutional protection for advertising. The Court has left many questions about the protection of commercial speech unanswered and this might be a very bad case to bring on early, before the Court has developed the rule more fully. The Court has already hinted that mere product advertising may enjoy the lowest degree of protection. Add to the foregoing factors that the case
involves issues of the public health and the protection of children and one can see that a negatively-inclined Court would have plenty of ammunition to use against the First Amendment argument.
Judges are only people and people are not favorably inclined toward this industry. On crucial points in the debate, the public opinion percentage scores against the industry read like a thermometer in July. Over 90 do not believe anything we say. Over 90 think cigarettes are dangerous. Even among smokers we lose. People say they want to quit. In an unaided poll a strong majority said that public smoking should be banned. About half of the people believe that ambient smoke is hazardous. With these kinds of attitudes floating around, Courts will likely be very negative toward cigarette advertising and any First Amendment argument which is advanced to get cigarettes back on TV [emphasis added]. {2210.01 pp. 2–3}
This frank assessment of the unpopularity of the tobacco industry and the extent to which the public was aware of the dangers of smoking for both smokers and nonsmokers indicates that the industry was far ahead of most politicians of the day in these realizations. In 1978 it was still only a rare politician who understood the industry's credibility problems and was willing to stand up to it. Pepples continues:
We have some discouraging history in this regard too. When the industry tried to impose the Fairness Doctrine in reverse—giving tobacco companies a right to reply to free anti-cigarette ads—Lewis Powell [an attorney at the time, who later became a justice of the Supreme Court] was hired and brought the case in the friendly 4th Circuit [of the US Court of Appeals]. Although it should have been won, the case was lost. It's bad law but there it is.
Even if the broadcast ban now were struck down, the pressures from government and non-government sources for counterads would be tremendous. The Fairness Doctrine may no longer require stations to carry anti-ads, as Morgan notes, but it certainly doesn't forbid stations to do so. The resumption of advertising on television would almost certainly be accompanied by the return in force of anti-smoking announcements [emphasis added]. {2210.01, p. 3}
Since the television and radio advertising ban was upheld in court, Pepples was undoubtedly correct in his assessment that it was not worth challenging. More recently, however, the advertising issue has shifted dramatically: there has been serious discussion of banning cigarette advertising altogether or of severely restricting its content. In August 1995 the FDA proposed a moderate set of restrictions designed to reduce the appeal of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to children and adolescents (8). The industry, of course, does not view such restrictions in the same way it did the broadcast ban. After the broadcast ban it merely
shifted its advertising to another medium, and it vigorously opposes any across-the-board restrictions or prohibitions.
In addition, Pepples rejects the notion that restrictions on public smoking are unconstitutional:
Similarly the recommendation for a wave of industry sponsored litigation attacking the constitutionality of public smoking ordinances is not convincing. A basic fallacy in Morgan's arguments is the assumption that the case involves an issue concerning the right of assembly and association. None of the anti-smoking ordinances in fact restricts a smoker's right of association or assembly. None of them exclude smokers from any place or infringe the rights of smokers to associate with whom they choose and assemble where they please. Instead they regulate activity or conduct. The ordinances do invoke the police power to restrict the activity of smoking in certain places.
A second major fallacy is the failure to recognize this police power aspect. The states have extensive authority to regulate the use of privately owned commercial property especially where questions of public health and safety are concerned.
With respect to the litigation recommended, the chances for success are relatively slight and with a small chance of winning, the prizes to be won would be practically valueless. If an anti-smoking ordinance is knocked down the most likely result would be the environmental protection "No Smoking" signs would be taken down and Fire Marshall's "No Smoking" signs would be put back up. No doubt the anti-smoking ordinances cover a somewhat broader group of public places than the Fire Marshall's have traditionally covered, but the Fire Marshall's authority is broad and could be more widely exercised in the future. One has to conclude, therefore, that the practical effort of a victory over the anti-smoking ordinances would be something less than sweeping [emphasis added]. {2110.01, pp. 3–4}
This analysis is particularly interesting for two reasons. First, it provides further evidence that the industry recognized nonsmokers' rights and clean indoor air as crucial issues in 1978, long before the mainstream health establishment did. Second, it indicates that the industry's chief lawyers agreed that they could not challenge a clean indoor air law on constitutional grounds; thus, they clearly conceded that public smoking is not a constitutionally protected right. Pepples's recognition that public smoking laws regulate conduct and do not interfere with constitutional freedoms is in sharp contrast with the position the tobacco industry has consistently taken when opposing the passage of such laws. In fact, the industry always frames the issues in terms of the effect of a proposed law on the "rights" of smokers (chapter 10).


text: Revenge of the Red DevilsPOSTED: 21 October 2011 Revenge of the Red Devils So it's Liverpool and Manchester United. Reds vs. Red Devils. So the mighty United have fallen to second place, and were taken down by City. And to make things worse, I had to read about De Jong saying they will take Man U down at Old Trafford. He thinks they can stay at first place? In Red Devil territory? I don't think so. I reckon De Jong should have checked the numbers first, because he's forgotten one fact: United are unbeaten at home. Their last defeat at Old Trafford was in 2010. After that came 1 draw, and a massively impressive 24 wins. City are undefeated on the road this season as well, but before that a record with their last 10 away games showing only 3 wins, 2 draws and 5 losses. And most importantly, they lost the last 4 encounters at Old Trafford. For City, there is a lot to prove. They'd like to show that they can be the top dogs in the EPL. But I tell you this, it won't be the case if Man United have anything to say about it. Verdict: Home win |

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Description Report Fraud
1978 Lincoln Mark V, Blue, for sale in Trenton, Michigan, for $11,999.
This vehicle has been in storage for the last ten years. I bought it from the original owner. The exterior and interior are in pristine condition. This vehicle has less than 60,000 miles on it. It was rust proofed when purchased in 1978. The engine is a 400 c.I. And burns regular gas. The options are as follows; power steering, power brakes, power windows, power vent windows, power seats (both sides), rear window defogger, power door locks, cruise control and power ant. Interior is a light blue crushed velour and has just been steam cleaned. The transmission has been flushed. The anti-freeze has been changed. The air conditioning has been converted to freon 134a and a new compressor installed. The spark plugs and wires were changed and the carburator has been professionally adjusted with a new choke installed. The muffler and tail pipe were just changed. Both power window motors have just been changed. The body has the original light blue paint and factory pin stripping. The remaining tire tread is about 85%. Has four wheel disc brakes with like new pads. Window tint (32%) has been installed all around except for the front windshield. All exterior paint has been professionally buffed and waxed to showroom condition! This car looks like it just left the showroom yesterday.
Car Shipping... Direct to your door!
Base Colour:Blue
Engine:6.6L 400 cu. in.
Location:Trenton, Michigan


text:
Hearing on: H.R. 3010, the "Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011"
Tuesday 10/25/2011 - 10:15 a.m. 2141 Rayburn House Office Building Full Commitee
By Direction of the Chairman
Hearing Documentation
Hearing PDF (Serial No. 112-75)
Related News
Statement of Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith Full Committee Hearing on: H.R. 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2011
Witness List
C. Boyden Gray Boyden Gray & Associates
Truth in Testimony
Christopher C. DeMuth American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Arnold Baker Owner Baker Ready-Mix Building Materials
Sidney Shapiro University Distinguished Chair in Law Wake Forest University School of Law


text:
Local award winning IT infrastructure, Services and support company Nova IT Solutions came to HBR to assist in the development of their new website.
Nova IT Solutions who pride themselves on their high levels of customer satisfaction wished to convey their take on customer support and the services on offer.
As recent winners of two awards for 'Best Small to Medium Size Business' and 'Outstanding IT Support' their business model obviously works well.
For the website HBR tried to create a clean functional site that assisted the users in finding the right information quickly and without fuss.
To that end HBR focused on the design of the homepage and the need to direct users directly to the respective services, support options and client information. There is actually quite a lot going on with the homepage, but hopefully we've managed to achieve this without it being obvious.
Roland Nowak from Nova IT Solutions told us that
"I'd just like to comment on how refreshing it's been to find another company that does take its customer service seriously and deliver on the deadlines promised. Cost Effective with Great Customer Service and Polished Web Design that reflects the clients brief first time."


text:
Strong Relationships with the Building Community
The project team utilized their local construction market knowledge, over 20-years of experience in New Jersey, and strong relationships with the City of Newark and the local subcontracting community to ensure the schedule for the relocation of Gibbons' corporate headquarters. Construction management for this 115,000sf, five and a half-floor project was completed on-time and included:
- four floors of practice space
- one floor of high-end conference center facilities
- attorney's offices and custom secretarial stations
- LAN room and support space
Maintaining the Schedule Through Long-Lead Procurement
A key factor in maintaining the schedule and quality of the project was the identification of long-lead procurement items early in the design process. For example, by working closely with the owner's representative, Structure Tone created a separate bid and filing package for the interconnecting stair. Thus, we were able to begin fabricating the detailed five-floor interconnecting stair tower. Similarly with custom finish materials, we pre-purchased the Italian marble stone flooring and awarded the subcontract prior to the completion of design documents. This entailed working closely with the architect, local stone distributors, and contacts at the stone quarry in Italy to procure stone flooring and countertops.
Project of the Year Private Sector Below $5M Construction Management Association of America New York Chapter |


text:
You're watching...
Did secret recording of 'teacher-bullying' violate the law?
'Studio B' legal panel debates dad wiring autistic son before sending him to school
Apr 25, 2012
You're watching...
'Studio B' legal panel debates dad wiring autistic son before sending him to school
Apr 25, 2012
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advanceThis transcript is automatically generated
-- -- mission right before the commercial one father says he caught some teachers bullying his son when he secretly recorded the teachers at school.
The father says he planned this impromptu staying if you will because he knew something terrible was going on he could just -- it.
-- would sure what it was so we took matters in his own hands and he put recorder on his son.
And the boys coming up here the areas he has autism takes a special class with five other students.
The father's secret device recorded more than six hours of sound and in this first clip -- a play for you.
The teacher apparently well you decide listen.
-- -- -- Well the father says this next clip shows the teacher's response win his son would not stop crying.
Yeah yeah.
It'll yeah yeah.
But there.
Yesterday -- The father says his son is a gentle child who only recently started acting up at all.
He says he thought the reason for the acting up was coming in because of something that happened at school.
Now the father says he's put the audio on line to reclaim his son's dignity.
And to call attention to how that teacher and lead in the classroom treated the boy.
No one who treats children like that who call -- pieces they changed who he really can't -- -- early deserves to be a teacher.
So there you have the argument this happened at Horace Mann elementary school in Cherry -- New Jersey.
Superintendent released a statement there and here's part of it.
I want to assure our parents that the individuals who -- heard on the recording.
Raising their voices and inappropriately addressing children no longer work in the district.
And have not since shortly after we received a copy of the recording.
The legal panel is back Arthur right dollar -- -- Arthur.
Good for dad.
I mean you know it as parents we we hand over our children to educators and I'm -- -- tremendous fan of educated in terms -- giving him a lot of leeway.
And putting -- department of discipline -- but.
Call -- kid you know especially have special needs child like that that -- and that raises it to a whole other level when he's crying.
Security of a child -- in distress.
And now you just exacerbating the situation as -- the comforting him so good for the school district if they took swift action.
And eliminated a problem.
It is difficult to argue.
That dad wasn't justified to do something but there are two issues that I think are important number one.
Did he have to put this all on line I don't really know how would necessarily help this child -- not that's number one and number two technically.
-- may have violated the -- or his son may have violated the law because to the extent that sun.
Why is recording conversations.
That two other people were having two other teachers were have been having.
-- -- -- And what -- violated -- -- is probably what we're really kicked in the door of them -- elementary autistic child usually sits -- have to take to it was a beautiful morning not usually six I have read the I mean the people should not be be be arrested but that if what they're saying is true shepherd the statement that they gave you that those teachers no longer work there that the reason want to follow put -- -- and what he's saying it.
He wanted to open a conversation that there are teachers out there -- doing.
Acting in a program what I was gonna like original handled internally because what.
Well -- the fox -- at 4 o'clock talking about it definitely does.
I think it's good for teachers yeah and what you think the sun is watching -- that was a good with the sudden he should be watching ESP here.
I -- not insane absolutely.
I would really -- and one saint.
Now that's a problem with me and dropping much straight game the saints -- bit longer -- saying you can.
That -- illegally -- -- a -- you know that was a good idea when you look out more about what really -- did OK today is Wednesday during Wednesday.
As consistent as -- iPod with moderate consistent as a politician and thank you all -- thank you.
Filter by section


text:
awful die already
Originally Posted by Dawg I don't eat meat Bro. I had a chicken sandwich. Originally Posted by Bro Sandwich of lies.
I think that pics fake
Originally Posted by Schmoopy I'm getting a boner just thinking about Mandingo's black snake moan.
ok, who writes "goo goo at a at a, fukin jew heeb"? "fuckyoubigot i dont like you're sig" "repeated annoying comments" The Lord is not my Shepherd for I am not a sheep.
Forum Rules


text:
University of Wisconsin - Stout: Censorship, Referral to Threat Assessment Team, and Threat of Criminal Charges after Professor Puts Posters Outside Office Door
On September 16, 2011, Stout's police chief removed a poster with a picture of Firefly actor Nathan Fillion and a quotation from the show from outside the office door of Professor James Miller. The police officer stated that the poster was unacceptable because it "refer[red] to killing" and "can be interpreted as a threat by others." Days later, the same officer removed another posting outside Miller's door that read "Warning: Fascism" and mockingly stated that "Fascism can cause blunt head trauma and/or violent death." The university's threat assessment team was activated by the posters despite their obviously satirical content, and Miller's academic dean called him in to discuss the threat assessment team's "concerns." Under pressure from FIRE and Firefly fans, and after Firefly actors Fillion and Adam Baldwin began notifying their million-plus followers about the case, Chancellor Charles W. Sorensen and other administrators at first issued a statement defending its censorship, but finally folded and announced that Stout would no longer censor the posters. In December 2011, FIRE published a video about the case featuring an interview with legendary author Neil Gaiman, who also had alerted his 1.7 million followers about the case.
- "Victory at UW-Stout: Chancellor Folds after Censorship of 'Firefly' and Anti-Fascism Posters," October 4, 2011: Under pressure from FIRE, national media, and actors Nathan Fillion and Adam Baldwin, the University of Wisconsin–Stout (Stout) has reversed its censorship of theater professor James Miller's poster featuring a line from Fillion's character in Joss Whedon's television series Firefly. Campus police had threatened Miller with criminal disorderly conduct charges, and he was reported to the "threat assessment team." After Stout censored his second poster, which stated, "Warning: Fascism," Miller came to FIRE for help.
- "University of Wisconsin-Stout Statement from Chancellor Sorensen, Provost Julie Furst-Bowe, and Vice Chancellor Ed Nieskes to Students, Faculty, and Staff ," October 4, 2011
- "UW-Stout Chancellor Doubles Down on Censorship of 'Firefly' and Anti-Fascism Posters," September 28, 2011: The chancellor of University of Wisconsin-Stout (UWS) has declared that he will not defend faculty First Amendment rights from censorship. UWS censored theater professor James Miller's poster featuring a line from actor Nathan Fillion's character in Joss Whedon's television series Firefly. Campus police threatened Miller with criminal disorderly conduct charges, and he was reported to the "threat assessment team." After UWS censored his second poster, which stated, "Warning: Fascism," Miller came to FIRE for help. In the midst of FIRE's national campaign to restore faculty rights at UWS, the university is standing by its absurd claim that both posters were "implied threat[s] of violence."
- "Email from University of Wisconsin-Stout Chancellor Charles W. Sorensen to all faculty and staff, September 27, 2011," September 27, 2011
- "University of Wisconsin-Stout statement on Facebook page, September 26, 2011," September 26, 2011
- "Email from Interim Dean Raymond Hayes to Professor James Miller, September 26, 2011," September 26, 2011
- "'Firefly' and Anti-Fascism Posters Get Professor Threatened with Criminal Charges on University of Wisconsin Campus," September 26, 2011: A professor has been censored twice, reported to the "threat assessment team," and threatened with criminal charges because of satirical postings on his office door. Campus police at the University of Wisconsin–Stout (UWS) censored theater professor James Miller's poster depicting a quotation from actor Nathan Fillion's character in the television series Firefly, and the police chief threatened Miller with criminal charges for disorderly conduct. After UWS censored his second poster, which stated, "Warning: Fascism," Miller came to FIRE for help.
- "FIRE Letter to UW-Stout Chancellor Charles W. Sorensen, September 21, 2011," September 21, 2011
- "Email to James Miller from Interim Dean Raymond Hayes, September 20, 2011," September 20, 2011
- "Email to James Miller from Chief of Police Lisa Walter, September 20, 2011," September 20, 2011
- "Emails between Professor James Miller and Chief of Police Lisa Walter, September 16, 2011," September 16, 2011
- "Fascism Picture Posted by University of Wisconsin-Stout Professor James Miller," September 16, 2011
- "Nathan Fillion Picture Posted by University of Wisconsin-Stout Professor James Miller," September 12, 2011
Case Materials
- "Best of the Blog: "Aim to Misbehave: Donate to FIRE Today!"," August 7, 2013
- "Greg's Anthem Film Festival Award Acceptance Speech -- The Long Version!," by Joseph Cohn, July 17, 2012
- "FIRE's 'Firefly' Video Wins Best Short Documentary at 2012 Anthem Film Festival," by Jaclyn Hall, July 16, 2012: This past weekend, FIRE's video "Don't Mess with Firefly! How SciFi Fans Made a Campus Safe for Free Speech" featuring legendary author Neil Gaiman was screened for audiences at FreedomFest in Las Vegas as part of the Anthem Film Festival. We are thrilled to announce that our video was named the festival's Best Short Documentary at the awards ceremony Saturday. FIRE would like to thank director Ted Balaker and Korchula Productions, Professor Jim Miller, Neil Gaiman, and Firefly fans everywhere.
- "FIRE's 'Firefly' case in 'Reason' Magazine," by Alisha Glennon, April 18, 2012
- "FIRE Visit Marks Progress for Free Speech at UW-Stout," by Jaclyn Hall, March 29, 2012
- "Announcing Our 'Firefly' Twitter Contest Winner," by Gina Luttrell, March 5, 2012: Lauren E. Becker, known on Twitter as @MsBecker, has won FIRE's contest for the best tweet promoting our video about our case at the University of Wisconsin-Stout. Lauren's tweet was chosen from more than 300 entries collectively receiving more than 1,000 votes at Prizes.org. Her winning entry: When they try to kill your free speech, you should be awake. You should be facing them. You should be armed. Lauren's entry echoes the line from the television series Firefly quoted by Professor James Miller in a poster that prompted Miller's referral to Stout's "threat assessment team". FIRE intervened on Miller's behalf and produced a video highlighting the absurdity of the case.
- "'Firefly' Video Hits 75,000 Views; Win a Prize for Promoting It!," by Lyzi Diamond, January 12, 2012
- "Tens of Thousands Watch FIRE's New 'Firefly' Video ," by William Creeley, December 28, 2011
- "Talking 'Firefly' in 'Daily Caller,' Greg's Sci-Fi Roots Show," by William Creeley, December 28, 2011
- "New FIRE Video: How 'Firefly' Fans Saved Free Speech on Campus," December 28, 2011
- "Greg on PJTV's 'Instavision'," by Bridget Glackin, October 14, 2011
- "'Firefly' Poster Censorship Update," by Adam Kissel, October 13, 2011
- "This Week in FIRE News: UW-Stout Folds on 'Firefly' Censorship," by Joanna Brenner, October 8, 2011
- "'Hot Air' and 'Firefly' Actors Praise FIRE," by Lyzi Diamond, October 5, 2011
- " For All You Firefly Fans Out There," by Robert Shibley, October 5, 2011
- "Victory at UW-Stout: Chancellor Folds after Censorship of 'Firefly' and Anti-Fascism Posters," by Peter Bonilla, October 4, 2011
- "Adam Baldwin Fingers UW-Stout's Censorship Double Standard at 'Big Hollywood'," by Adam Kissel, October 4, 2011
- "More than 900 Voice Opposition to Censorship at UW-Stout," by Peter Bonilla, October 3, 2011
- "More Dangerous 'Threats' Come to Light at UW-Stout after 'Firefly' Censorship," by Adam Kissel, October 3, 2011
- "Cue the Shameless Virginia Tech Comparisons: UW-Stout Takes Defense of Unconstitutional Censorship to New, Disgraceful Lows," by Peter Bonilla, September 30, 2011
- "Greg Reports the Latest on 'Firefly' Case in 'The Huffington Post'," by Bridget Glackin, September 29, 2011
- "What's the Context of the 'Firefly' Quote?," by Robert Shibley, September 28, 2011
- "24 Hours Later, 500 Emails to UW-Stout Chancellor Demanding Justice in 'Firefly' Case," by Peter Bonilla, September 27, 2011
- "Will on the Radio Tonight Discussing 'Firefly' Case," by Joanna Brenner, September 27, 2011
- "'Firefly' Case in FIRE News," by Joanna Brenner, September 26, 2011
- "'Firefly' and Anti-Fascism Posters Get Professor Threatened with Criminal Charges on University of Wisconsin Campus," by Adam Kissel, September 26, 2011
Blog Entries
- "What I should have said at FreedomFest,"
by Greg Lukianoff, The Daily Caller, July 16, 2012 - "FIRE, Firefly, and the First Amendment,"
by Jacob Sullum, Reason Online, April 23, 2012 - "UW-Stout welcomes discussion of free speech issues,"
by Pamela Powers, Leader-Telegram, March 28, 2012 - "FIRE's Firefly Victory,"
by Jacob Sullum, Reason Online, December 29, 2011 - "Neil Gaiman talks 'Firefly,' free speech on campus, and one of the craziest cases of the year,"
by Greg Lukianoff, The Huffington Post, December 29, 2011 - "Neil Gaiman and fans of sci-fi classic 'Firefly' save free speech on campus!,"
by Greg Lukianoff, The Daily Caller, December 28, 2011 - "Video: How sci-fi fans put Firefly into the FIRE,"
by Ed Morrissey, Hot Air, December 28, 2011 - "How Firefly fans and Neil Gaiman used social media to save free speech,"
by Erik Kain, Forbes, December 27, 2011 - "How Firefly fans saved free speech on campus,"
by Alex Knapp, Forbes, December 27, 2011 - "University Backs Down Over Firefly Poster Protest,"
by Andy Chalk, The Escapist, October 14, 2011 - "University of Wisconsin reverses its decision in 'Firefly' censorship case,"
by Jess d'Arbonne, examiner.com, October 8, 2011 - "Browncoats - 1, Alliance - 0: College changes tune on censorship of 'Firefly' poster,"
by Greg Lukianoff, The Daily Caller, October 7, 2011 - "College Changes Course on Censorship of 'Firefly' Poster,"
by Greg Lukianoff, The Huffington Post, October 7, 2011 - "University of Wisconsin retreats from censorship,"
by Ed Morrissey, Hot Air, October 5, 2011 - "UW-Stout flip-flops on professor's 'violent' posters, will allow them,"
by Andrew Dowd, Eau Claire Leader-Telegram, October 5, 2011 - "'You can't take the sky (or my poster) from me, says UW-Stout prof,"
by Staff Editorial, The Daily Caller, October 5, 2011 - "University Professor Censored Over... 'Firefly' Poster?,"
by Adam Baldwin and Liberty Chick, Brietbart.com, October 4, 2011 - "Professor allowed to re-hang controvrsal posters at UW-Stout,"
by Jamie Paige, Chippewa Valley Post, October 4, 2011 - "BREAKING: Wisconsin University Reverses Decision to Remove 'Firefly' Poster,"
by Staff Editorial, Big Hollywood, October 4, 2011 - "UW-Stout poster ruling overreaching,"
by Staff Editorial, TheJournalTimes.com, October 4, 2011 - "UW-Stout chills First Amendment,"
by Tom Giffey, Eau Claire Leader-Telegram, October 3, 2011 - "Out of the 'Firefly' into the frying pan,"
by Deb Anderson, The Dunn County News, October 1, 2011 - "'Firefly' censorship debacle gets wildly out of hand at University of Wisconsin,"
by Jess d'Arbonne, examiner.com, September 30, 2011 - "Censoring Joss Whedon's Firefly and the Chancellor Who Cried Wolf,"
by Greg Lukianoff, The Huffington Post, September 29, 2011 - "The Speech Police Return to Campus,"
by Christian Schneider, National Review Online, September 29, 2011 - "University Police & Administration Freak Out Over Nathan Fillion Firefly Poster; Censor, Threaten Professor,"
by Mike Masnick, Techdirt, September 29, 2011 - "College campus police save students from threat of Firefly poster,"
by Sean O'Neal, A.V. Club, September 27, 2011 - "THE DARK SIDE: A First Amendment showdown at UW-Stout,"
by David Ziemer, Wisconsin Law Journal, September 27, 2011 - "Wis. University Allegedly Labels Prof's Movie Poster 'Unacceptable' & Removes It,"
by Christopher Santarelli, The Blaze, September 27, 2011 - "Theater Professor's Firefly Poster Declared a Threat,"
by Lauri Apple, Gawker, September 27, 2011 - "When Firefly posters are outlawed, only outlaws will have Firefly posters,"
by Staff Editorial, The Daily Caller, September 26, 2011 - "Insult to injury: Quote from sci-fi classic 'Firefly' censored on campus,"
by Greg Lukianoff, The Daily Caller, September 26, 2011 - "The Clear and Present Danger Posed by Space Captains,"
by Jacob Sullum, Reason.com, September 26, 2011 - "University Threatens Criminal Charges Over Firefly Poster,"
by Andy Chalk, The Escapist, September 26, 2011


text:
You're watching...
DNC's convention controversies
Former Indiana Senator Evan Bayh weighs in
Sep 7, 2012
You're watching...
Former Indiana Senator Evan Bayh weighs in
Sep 7, 2012
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advanceThis transcript is automatically generated
And the set is former senator of Indiana and wanted to -- some of the -- are there estimating that probably a 130.
Jobs have 30000 jobs created.
In the last month after a 180000.
A month before.
Probably gonna keep unemployment above 8%.
I'd rather another month plus a continuation of what we see.
-- that job we're not -- really remember wondering now.
The political ramifications of that are that no president has ever been reelected -- whether.
Right down the -- and so you know less than twelve hours after President Obama gave.
You know his best pitch for another four years and around is going to be able him.
With this number whatever it is it probably isn't going to be a year ago.
And the Republicans had a good convention and it got that one or two point bounce from that my guess is that the Democrats got that back over the last few days.
I think the thing to look better the debate's most of those independent voters out there for an appeal to by the you know the rally in the faces they're gonna wanna see his achievements and side by side.
No spin no filter would see what they've got would you think of the president's performance last night.
I thought it was good but that people -- expect him to do very well just.
Good not great well you know the bar set pretty high by Bill Clinton and I think that was the main thing to remember Steve -- when you're a first time candidate like it was four years ago there's a blank canvas.
People are willing to pay a lot more attention to his speech when you've -- the incumbent it's -- what have you done.
And so there's not as much room free speech to really deliver big bounce for an incumbent is there is for you can't -- let's talk about some things that happened this week while we're here in Charlotte one of the things is governor O'Malley.
Had to walk back to comment he was asked so are you better off today than you were four years ago he said.
No -- that he changed his mind we get -- listen to these.
Can you honestly say that people are better off today than they were four years ago no but that's not the question of this election.
We are clearly better off as a country because we're now creating jobs rather than losing them.
See now that's a problem.
That's a messaging problem.
Well you know all politicians say things they wish they could take back you over you know and we had some issues with the platform that will correct that.
But look I think what people gonna focus on Steve after all the -- all the speeches.
What are you gonna do going forward -- really matter in my life particularly on the economy and jobs.
That's what people are gonna look -- for the next sixty days and and you mentioned the platform problem that.
How does someone get -- messed up that badly.
You know I don't know that's kind of an -- what -- the weather happens sometimes people say things they regret I assume they worked in the platform for a long time.
I'm just glad it was correct and that god was put back into that Jerusalem was literally.
What kind of the capital group of Israel that's right and -- the general election starts officially today now that we.
Got both conventions under our belt senator thank you very much -- -- -- be well.
Filter by section


text:
Type: |
Upper Material: |
Cuff: |
Sole Material: |
Flex: |
Volume: |
Lacing System: |
Lace Harness: | Yes |
Liner Type: |
Liner Lacing: |
Removable Liner: |
Manufacturer Warranty: | 1 Year |
Description: DC Ceptor Snowboard Boots
Seize the day in a new pair of Ceptor boots from DC. Featuring the Alpha Liner with multi-density zones and the shock absorbing ImpactG technology, these boots are as comfy as it gets. And the Aerotech Ventilation System with molded vents in the shell and liner only adds to the luxurious feel of the Ceptor boots for an empowering ride. So if you're looking for a one-of-a-kind comfort and style combo, wield the Ceptors from DC.
Key Features of the DC Ceptor Snowboard Boots:
- Flex: 8
- Direct Power Lacing: strategically designed overlays in the boots upper provide more power and leverage for optimal shell closure.
- WrapLock: wrap Lock hardware prevents your laces from slipping by simply wrapping around the hardware. this can turn your traditional lace boot into a zonal closure system by locking the lace at key points.
- 3D Tongue
- Articulation
- Molded backstay
- Welded Toe Cap
- Aerotech Ventilation System: molded vents in the shell and liner work in unison to release unwanted moisture away from the riders foot. this proprietary system will keep your feet warm and dry and prevent bacteria build up.
- Internal Ankle Harness
- UniLite: DC's proprietary outsole technology, UnILIte provides traction, durability, dampening, and cushioning all while drastically reducing weight. UnILIte soles feature distinct traction patterns for ascending, descending, and skating around with our Push Zone tread pattern. the snow-shedding traction designs also prevent snow from building up and clogging bindings.
- ImpactG: For the ultimate in comfort we incorporate ImPaCt G, our proven impact absorbing system that does not change properties under varied temperatures or climates
- Alpha Liner: multi density zones, neoprene ankle strap, aerotech system, aegis, full grain leather collar top on status & terrain models, anatomical j-bars
Customer Reviews | Add Your Review!
"Loved it"
Love the color and price. Got mine for 30% off retail price!
DC Ceptor Snowboard Boots
Already Asked: 1 Question, 1 Answer
Sort by:


text:
The deep cushion on our Wells ottoman makes it a great ottoman for lounging, but special details like precise stitching and a sculptural, solid wood base make it anything but ordinary. The seat height is designed to let your feet rest naturally as plump cushions support you in comfort.
Details & Dimensions
Care & Fit
- Fabric & Upholstery Care
- Watch the video on how to measure your space for delivery or download the instructions
Any Fabric Any Frame
Choose from more than 300 fabrics available for custom orders. Start designing
012We'll deliver unlimited furniture items to for one flat rate per trip.
Ordering a single item? Delivery is only $129
UPS Shipping
Ship an unlimited amount of small accessories for free. Ship one large accessory item or a piece of small furniture for $25 via UPS Ground.
Get an unlimited number of small accessories delivered for this set rate.
Delivery rate for a single large accessory item or a piece of small furniture.
Free delivery on this item.
View Options and PricesShare this page:
Reviewed by 1 customer
Displaying review 1
- Comfortable fabric
- Cushions hold shape
- Great design
- Well made
Best Uses
- Formal
- Large spaces
- Lounging
Customer comments about Wells Ottoman:
We love this ottoman. We got it to go with the Wells 101" sofa in camel leather, but we got the ottoman in the stock fabric. We love the way the two different fabrics complement each other. The cushion on this ottoman does not seem like it will ever lose it's shape. My only complaint about the fabric is that it seems to catch somewhat easily and little snags appear. So far I've been able to cut them off, but I'm not sure if I will be able to continue to do this without damage. The wooden legs on this ottoman are beautiful. Just be aware that the legs are a different color from the Wells 101" sofa we got. No one pointed this out to us when we ordered and now they have two different types of wood which I wish we had been warned about ahead of time. In the catalogue they look almost identical.
Service and delivery comments:
This ottoman was back ordered when we purchased it at the same time as the Wells sofa. We paid a delivery fee for the sofa. I thought Room and Board should have then delivered the ottoman for free since it wasn't available at the same time as the sofa and would have been included if it had been available at the same time. So, rather than pay a reduced delivery fee for just the ottoman, we chose to pick it up directly at the warehouse once it was available.
Displaying review 1


text:
September 8, 2011
Matt Moreno GOAZCATS.com
Arizona's Mike Stoops recently extended an offer to another 2012 recruit. Rivals.com West recruiting analyst Adam Gorney provides his insight. ...More... To continue reading this article you must be a member. Sign Up Now for a FREE Trial
Already a member? Click here to sign in


text:
by Jake Sanders
Ah yes. Like a national holiday for those who aren't quite patriotic, The Pitchfork Music Festival comes around but once a year…however, I don't have the money to attend. No, I'm not bitter or jealous. After all, there's a ton of music blogs to choose from that give an group-by-group account of the festival, plus all the really juicy stuff that happens off stage. That should be almost as good as being there, right?
Trying to get to a concert of this size is the same story almost every year. The ads show up around the beginning of spring for the summer shows, there's a lot of hype, there's a lot of bands listed, and even the price is affordable. And I think, "Yes, this will be the year I'll get to see at least one, get out there and really jive, y'know?" Yet I wonder.. "How will I make it there? I don't think I know anyone who lives in East Sussex, and I'm not sure if there's even a hamlet nearby where I could rent a room." So I become resigned to looking around for local shows, or if the money's really tight, watching The Last Waltz at home.
Thankfully, the blogs are there for people who couldn't go to Pitchfork. You can skip a rock on the internet and hit a music blog covering it. If you're quick enough, you can catch the live streaming videos during the performances, but if not, there are the write-ups that some blogs do. It's not exactly the same as hearing the band live, but if you know them well enough it's kind of interesting to read what they sounded like, and to check out some pictures too. And for bands that you've never heard, it's good to read about what their performances were like, and to check them out some other time. To be fair though, sometimes they can leave something to be desired. I would like to know how Neko Case and Fleet Foxes played, but reading on Pitchforks' blog that an out-fit looked like it was from a yard-sale and how there were five beards were on stage seems a bit like reading tips from Vogue or GQ.
One thing that I do love about reading the blogs is checking out the pictures. I'd like to think that I'm a purist and couldn't care less about what a band looks like. But, I know that I'm really not, and that I do like to see the funny faces that musicians make and the like. Like, scrolling down a list of pictures on onethirtybpm.com and Brooklynvegan, then seeing Robert Pollard performing a high-kick without any context or without actually having been there is hilarious to me. Or, seeing Ariel Pink putting three fingers in the air and grimacing. "He looks so angry here," I think to myself, "and yet he makes such pleasant music".
It is a stretch to think that a combination of pictures and a short description is any substitute for seeing a band live. But I found out about a lot of new groups looking over all this stuff, so thanks to all those who went and wrote about it. Then again, it could be that the bloggers are just flaunting how much fun they had, just callously rubbing it in our faces. Just giving us little tidbits of information to keep us mildly interested, but really laughing themselves silly thinking about all those who couldn't go.
But no, I'm not bitter at all, really.


text:
Hate Facebook mobile ads? Now you can hide them
Facebook is letting mobile users hide ads in their News Feeds, the company confirmed today.
This applies to the ads that Facebook Pages share featuring photos or links, and is available on iOS, Android, and the mobile Web (Pages are Facebook profiles for brands or public figures). The feature, which was already available on the desktop, has been live for about six months now, according to a representative. Just click the "x" button in the top right of the advertisement.
The Atlantic noted this change after writing an article about how annoying the Facebook mobile ads were.
Additionally, … Read more


text:
Our Package Includes
- Logo Design and Branding
- Custom eCommerce Design
- Support and Training
- Social Media Integration
- Web Hosting and Email
Our eCommerce Features
When you say "Professional eCommerce" it can only mean one thing; eCommerce that's actually going to trade. The market is full of eCommerce Packages, yet most fail to deliver.
At OnTop we take our eCommerce Package very seriously. That's why our package is ample for any online business. All of our eCommerce websites include:
Social Media Integration
View Details >>Mobile Device Compatibility
View Details >>Google Shopping Integration
View Details >>
Custom eCommerce
In addition to our eCommerce package, we also offer a custom eCommerce solution created using your specific requirements. If our eCommerce package isn't quite what you were looking for, then don't hesitate to contact us to speak to one of our consultants.


text:
The Choir was founded in 1983 by Rolf Beck who has been its director since then. Its repertoire spans both the secular and sacred a capella literature and the great choral-orchestral works of the Classical, Romantic and modern eras. A recent focuses of the choir's work have been performances and radio / CD recordings of Mahler's Symphonies Nos. 2, 3 and 8.
Through numerous concerts, radio broadcasts, CDs and television appearances, the Choir has won a high reputation in Bamberg, Germany, and throughout the musical world. Its concert activity takes it to Germany's musical capitals as well as to Europe's leading festivals, including the Lucerne and Salzburg Festivals, the Linz Brucknerfest and Prague Spring. Choir members have toured Israel, Japan and South America. The Choir has collaborated with many maestros including the Principal Conductor Jonathan Nott, his predecessor Horst Stein, the Bamberg Symphony's Honorary Conductor Herbert Blomstedt, Robin Ticciati and its own founder and director Rolf Beck.
In the past members have sung under, among others, Gerd Albrecht, Adam Fischer, Claus Peter Flor, Rafael Frühbeck de Burgos, Michael Gielen, Hartmut Haenchen, Leopold Hager, Richard Hickox, Manfred Honeck, Gustav Kuhn, Emmanuel Krivine, Ferdinand Leitner, Ingo Metzmacher, Giuseppe Patané, Georges Prêtre, Karl Anton Rickenbacher, Giuseppe Sinopoli, Carl St. Clair, Marcello Viotti, Walter Weller and Hans Zender.
Membership of the Bamberg Symphony Choir is conditional upon an audition, in which vocal and general musical abilities are tested. Choir members initially prepare works privately and then meet for rehearsal weekends on specific projects.
Christoph Böhmke
Mobile: +49 (0) 170-8611250
During the 2013/2014 season the Choir will take part in the following performances by the Bamberg Symphony – Bavarian State Philharmonic:
September 2013
Concert at Beethovenfest Bonn
Ludwig van Beethoven
Symphonie Nr. 9
Dirigent I Jonathan Nott
Februar 2014
Concerts in Bamberg
E.T.A. Hoffmann
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Dirigent I Rolf Beck


text:
Updated May 5, 2012 - 3:43 pm
Lockett announces transfer to Marquette
Arizona State's Trent Lockett has announced he will transfer to Marquette for his senior season to be closer to his mother, who lives in Minnesota and has been diagnosed with cancer.
Lockett thanked everyone involved in his career at the school through a tweet earlier in the day and said the transfer was the hardest decision he's ever had to make.
I've been a sundevil since 16. I love and appreciate the people and experience at ASU. Saying that, I am excited to finish my last yr at MU!
— Trent Lockett (@T_Lockett24) May 5, 2012
"Words can't express my gratitude to the program and all it has given me," Lockett said in a statement released by the team. "I am now a proud graduate of ASU."
Lockett, the team's leading scorer last season, has already earned a bachelor's degree in business communication from Arizona State.
He said that while his decision is based on his mother's health, he also wanted to make a good basketball decision and Marquette is a great place to end his career.
He was granted a release from his scholarship at Arizona State enabling him to look into transferring closer to home. It was rumored that he had also talked to Iowa State and Gonzaga.
ASU Coach Herb Sendek said he is proud of Lockett for all of his accomplishments, and knows he will always be a Sun Devil at heart.
"We are glad he has found a good place to complete his college career close to home so he can provide support to his mom Judy and know the Sun Devil nation will continue to follow his career," Sendek said.
- Ed Cunningham, ESPN College Football Analyst - Monday December 9ASU's heartbreaking loss, the other Championship Saturday games and Selection Sunday.
- Glenn Parker, Pac-12 Network football analyst - Friday December 6Glenn Parker previews the Pac-12 Championship game.
- Joe Schad, ESPN college football reporter - Friday December 6A national perspective on the ASU-Stanford Pac 12 Championship Game
- J.R. Redmond, former ASU running back - Friday December 6Redmond discussed the similarities between the 96 ASU team and this year's edition.
- Bickley Blast - Friday December 6Setting the stage for the ASU-Stanford Pac 12 Championship Game.


text:
My friends and I were counting down the hours until Lost starts up again today.
haha we have no lives!!
My friends and I were counting down the hours until Lost starts up again today.
haha we have no lives!!
^ Watch the catchup episodes...
Sunday tho...is going to be great
Yeah.. today its feb 7th ...and LOST continues...
~like a Black Star I Wish You Were Here 4 Real..
*attended THE BLACK STAR TOUR in*
Torino, Italy (Sept 8th), Milano, Italy (Sept 11th), Köln, Germany (Sept 19th)
I am so excited for tonight!!!
Im watching Lost right now!!!!
It started 5 minutes ago! yay, Im so excited!
It's about time that show started again.
This episode was pretty good, I gotta say. Even though I had to miss like 10 minutes of it because I had to run out and get the keys for my store from my coworker which I forgot to get when we closed. Hahahahahahaha.
Buuuuuuut yeah. YAY!
wtf @ Carl?
Also, the previews for next week... that girl BETTER be someone and Desmond's... powers better have a purpose other than a lame B-plot, and it better go somewhere, this show's starting to get on my nerves.
Yeah I definitely enjoyed the episode! it wasnt super intense but it was a good "first episode back" type thing. Like it was packed full of information and a fair bit hapenned.
Im pretty sure next episode is going to be intense though. I cant wait til next week now!
But it has a new time!!! It comes on from 11:30-12:30 for me now instead of 10:30-11:30. Thats so upsetting.
yeah last night was good
That's why I love having satellite. I get it at 8:00 and at 10:00. And also at like, 12:00 or something... probably 1:00 too.Originally Posted by Britt_15
yeah my friend does too!
He invited me over to watch it with him now! haha so that will be better.


text:
Tuesday October 9, 2012
NORTH ADAMS -- The Drury High School Class of 1943 will have a luncheon at 12:30 p.m. on Thursday, Oct. 11, at the Hub. All classmates are invited and so is anyone who was at Drury for those four years.
For more information, call Fran Schmidt at 413-663-7630 or Mary Como at 413-442-1701.


text:
CO Plaid Western Shirt in Police Blue/Milk
Founded in 1989, G-Star Raw has been known for its innovative and cutting edge style. This brand is about the futuristic, alternative, experimental, and traditional. The philosophy, Just the Product led to products like the Raw Denim in 1996 and has since broadened to include an array of new, edgy, and trendy collection for all ages.
- 100% cotton
- Button front closure
- Front flap pockets with button closure
- Styled with Naked & Famous Denim Skinny Guy in Black Power Stretch.
- Modeled in size M. See fit guide for model's dimensions.
- Revolve Style No. GSTA-MS371
- Manufacturer Style No. 83058 4448 3289


text:
Eric's CCTV - Inglewood Security Cameras
- by cctvlosangeles
- 0 contributors
- -
- March 13, 2011
- + Add To This Guide
Los Angeles CCTV is providing surveillance system equipment as well as its experts installation throughout the Los Angeles area for over eleven years. Our licensed technicians have installed surveillance systems for private homes, commercial spaces and government facilities.
Guides We Think You'll Like
What Is the Your Favorite Color?
Blue... no Green!


text:
Thursday, January 24, 2013
I feel so violated by Manti Te'o
by Eyes
at 10:02 PM
I just finished watching the hour long show with Katie Couric, and I can't believe what I just saw. I am speechless.
This is one of the most unbelievable interviews I think I have seen in every sense of the word.
It was so surreal if I didn't know any better I'd think I just took some psychedelic drug. I know I did not, but man that interview was beyond bizarre.
Tell me you saw through him. Please? I need that for my sanity right now.
To say I'm disgusted would be an understatement. If you sit here next to me right now, I couldn't wipe that expression off my face if I tried--not for all the tea in China.
Just wow.
I've watched hundreds of people in interviews over the years, and this one is one of the most disturbing I've seen in a long time.
Does that give you a sense of what I think of Manti?
Labels: Brian Te'o, liars, Manti Te'o