Legal Opinion
Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Decided January 24, 2000No. Civ.A.99-11118WGY, Civ.A.99-11270WGYPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YOUNG, Chief Judge.
I. CIGARETTE ADVERTISING IS FUNCTIONAL PORNOGRAPHY
The metaphor is apt. Both are entirely legal. Both are spawned by and supported by multi-billion-dollar industries generating significant economic activity. While ostensibly clucking in disapproval, millions of adult Americans support each industry with considerable cash outlays yet seek to have the government teach our children to avoid that which so many of us eagerly purchase.
Both cigarette advertising and pornography are protected forms of speech, reaching out to offer messages or products desired by…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Griswold v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. ReillySupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- National Federation of the Blind v. Target Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 2006
- Lorillard Tobacco v. Consolidated CigarCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2000
- Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. ReillySupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. ReillySupreme Court of the United States · 2001