|
Judges rule against free speech claim
STUBBED OUT:
Judges ruled that freedom of speech protection in the Constitution does not apply to the labelling of imported cigarettes
By Jimmy Chuang
STAFF REPORTER
Saturday, May 08, 2004, Page 4
Grand justices yesterday rejected a claim that forcing tobacco manufacturers to label the percentage of nicotine and tar in their cigarettes contravened constitutional protections for freedom of speech.
Taiwan International Tobacco Co, which imports well-known brands such as Cartier Lights, Cartier Menthol and Dunhill Lights, had requested a constitutional interpretation after it was fined for failing to print information about the nicotine and tar content of the cigarettes on the packs.
On Jan. 1, 1998, officials from the Taipei City Government's Department of Health found the three brands -- without the nicotine and tar information on the packs -- on sale at Tienmu's Dayeh Takashimaya Department Store.
The department fined the company NT$300,000, suspended its permission to import the cigarettes for six months and destroyed remaining stocks of the brands.
The company lost a suit it filed against the department and an appeal to the high court.
Taiwan International Tobacco's general manager then asked the Council of Grand Justices for a constitutional interpretation because he felt that Article 8 of the Tobacco Hazards Act (µÒ®`¨¾¨îªk) -- under which the company had been fined -- was unfair and contrary to Article 11 of the Constitution.
Article 11 of the Constitution states that "the people shall enjoy the freedom of speech, writing, teaching and publication."
Constitutional Interpretation Article 577, handed down yesterday, rejected the complaint.
"Article 8 of the Tobacco Hazards Act clearly states that `the percentage of nicotine and tar in the cigarettes shall be labeled on the packs,'" said Judicial Yuan Secretary-General Fan Kuang-chun (S¥ú¸s). "Grand justices said that this article is not against Article 11 of the Constitution, as the applicants of the constitutional interpretation article believed.
"The case concerns public health more than freedom of publication. They are two different issues," Fan said.
This story has been viewed 2484 times.
|
Print
Mail
wiki links