U.S. Court Rules Pork Checkoff Unconstitutional

22 Oct 03 - A federal appeals court, dealing a blow to the Bush administration, affirmed that the $50 million pork marketing program was unconstitutional and should end.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the pork "checkoff" program, famous for its TV ads with the catch phrase "The Other White Meat," violated farmers' First Amendment rights.

Source: Yahoo News via John Deer

Ha!

I'm glad that's over. It was all over the place here in Chicago. Some El train cars were converted into huge pork ads. Ick.

Really? I think my chest just loosened up another notch. Just waiting for the other shoe to drop, though...

Isn't constitutional law interesting? :)

But you're right epski... They will come up with something else... An "improved" version, perhaps?

Could some one explain a non-american what exactly was wrong with it ?

Like what are the 1st admendment rights and why where they violated?

The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of speech.

I did not know anything about the pork checkoff either, so I searched and found this (http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/business/7079573.htm):

(emphasis mine)

The pork checkoff program began in 1986 and requires pork producers to pay a small fee for every animal they sell. The money -- about $45 million to $50 million annually -- goes to the National Pork Board, which decides how it should be spent on advertising and research. "Pork, The Other White Meat" is a checkoff-supported advertising campaign.

The Campaign for Family Farms, a Minnesota organization, has fought the checkoff, contending that it pays for advertising with which the organization disagrees.

The organization and other checkoff opponents say the checkoff buys generic advertising, favors those who sell processed meats, misrepresents the safety and desirability of large commercial farming operations and downplays the benefits of family farms.

The district court held, and the 6th Circuit affirmed, that "requiring the payment of these assessments violates the First Amendment rights of pork producers by compelling them to subsidize speech with which they do not agree."

Ok, now I understand.

The campaign (most likely) will go on, but they can't force farmers to contribute to it.