Drink to this

Act 199's purpose, enforcement tactics miss the mark

"The question is, does this restriction directly serve its purpose?"

That question, posed by Mark Goodman, executive director of the Student Press Law Center, concerns Act 199, a state law that restricts alcohol advertising in publications such as student newspapers.

And the answer to that question is "no."

And that's because Act 199 is not going to accomplish what state legislators probably intended -- to curb excessive and underage alcohol consumption. These are both worthwhile goals. However, unfortunately, Act 199 is the completely wrong way to go about accomplishing those goals.

"But restricting free speech is also a problem. And you can't solve one problem by creating another."

In 1996, University President Graham Spanier said excessive alcohol use is the University's biggest problem. Since then, Spanier and other University officials have attempted to work on this problem through more alcohol-free University events and education on alcohol. Community enforcement of underage drinking also appears to have increased during the last year.

All of these methods are worth noting because as we have said before, excessive drinking is a problem at the University.

But restricting free speech is also a problem. And you can't solve one problem by creating another.

The state, through the enforcement of Act 199, is trying to control what you, as students, are permitted to read. Bar owners were visited by state officials who told them that they could be violating Act 199 by providing information on their drink specials for The Daily Collegian News Division's "Over 21 Scene" drink listings.

Those "violations" could result in fines for the bar owners. We see this as a scare tactic used to put bar owners in a vulnerable position.

The information provided in the News Division's listings was news content, not advertisements. Advertisement of alcohol, not factual information provided in a news format, is what Act 199 is aimed at prohibiting.

What the bar owners were doing was legal. Being told otherwise was wrong, and only served to intimidate bar owners so they would no longer provide the information for the listings section.

Act 199 isn't doing the job.

Down the hatch, Pennsylvania.