A National Legal-Action Antismoking Organization
Entirely Supported by Tax-Deductible Contributions
| Home | Search | About ASH | Why Join | Comment | Email page |
|
Action on Smoking and Health
A National Legal-Action Antismoking Organization Entirely Supported by Tax-Deductible Contributions
|
Taiwan: Judge Rules that Speech Protection Does Not Include Labeling of Cigarettes [05/10-3]
Excerpts from: Judges rule against free speech claim
STUBBED OUT: Judges ruled that freedom of speech protection in the Constitution does not apply to the labeling of imported cigarettes
By Jimmy Chuang Taipei Times [05/08/04]
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.
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 (范光群). "Grand justices said that this article is not against Article 11 of the Constitution, as the applicants of the constitutional interpretation article believed.
| Home Web Page | Search This Site | Learn About ASH | Why Join ASH | Comment on This | Email This Page |