Bad Frog Brewery: The Abuse of Vulgar Terms, Pictures, and Slogans Case Report (Assessment)

Introduction

Needless to say, contemporary society has recently evolved into a very twisted substance of rules and responsibilities. It is important to understand that society would not cohesively exist otherwise. However, the vitally important issue that has to be examined within the topic of social responsibilities and laws – namely the freedom of speech right – is the commercial speech rights and restrictions. Although commerce in the US is developing at a steady gait, this succe3ful advancement in the economical and advertisement world has its drawbacks as well. Among the shortcomings, the producers and manufacturers committed is the abuse of vulgar terms, pictures, and slogans which impacts children whose parents buy the products. As such, one of the most significant court cases in the world of commerce is going to be analyzed in this paper.

Issue

The case uncovers around the label provided by Bad Frog Brewery, Inc. which contained a frog with its unwebbed fingers one of which is extended in a well-known assaulting a human dignity manner. It is considered widely that the gesture of “giving a finger” cannot be understood anyhow but as an insult. The gesture ‘Fuck You’ is obscene and frequently appears in the streets it leads to fights and even homicides. This is exactly what brought the two parties: Bad Frog Brewery Inc. and The New York State Liquor Authority (“NYSLA” or “the Authority”) to the court. Though, it is necessary to note that the notion of authority as per Raz ‘… is one of the most controversial concepts found in the armory of legal and political philosophy ’. (2009, p. 3) The issue presented concerned the First Amendment protection of commercial speech. Significantly, the trial proceedings have been brought to a very unexpected conclusion within the area of assessing the importance of impact on kids’ upbringing. While Bad Frog Brewery Inc. was seeking permission to sell the beer with an image of the defiant frog, the Authority denied their request. So, the beer was not allowed to be sold in most of the states of the Us, though 15 states still have it on the shop shelves. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board Chairman John E. Jones III was the one to ban selling.

Rule

It is essential to understand why Bad Frog Brewery Inc. appealed to the court in a desperate search for justice. Since the beer was well-sold in the majority of states before and only encountered a real challenge once got to Pennsylvania, I think, the company had serious grounds to protest and ask why the United States of America has such a different opinion all across the states. So, Bad Frog Brewery Inc. stated that the use of the image on the beer bottles was a commercial speech and, thus, could be entitled to First Amendment protection. It is necessary to outline here, that the First Amendment Protection stands for the right to receive information and for the right to speak in commercial interests. (Whaley,2008, p. 72 )

Analysis

The rule is applicable enough because the freedom of speech especially the freedom of commercial speech is an integrative part of American society. Moreover, the court has come to the same decision and invalidated New York’s denial of Bad Frog Brewery’s use of the image. The explanation seemed to be very explicit and adequate: there is too much advertisement nowadays that contradicts moral rules and social norms. Therefore, it would be highly constitutionally unsound to prohibit selling the beer bottle with an image of a frog on them because those are only a little part of the entire giant number of the same commercial images. Thus, doing away with only one label is an evident contradiction to the constitutional freedom of speech since all the others companies providing immoral ads seen by children will remain in circulation. This is a significant case that changed a particular area of law. Unlike the concept, the law had before the court decision changed the view of the commercial phrase and image expression. This is a meaningful turn in the history of American jurisdiction and commercial way of expression. The attempt to privatize state stores failed, (Feinman, 2006, p.32) however, the beer was still banned in several states. However, the most important issue is that it was regarded during the trial that the separately taken brand is not responsible for the entire image of the whole society being immorally advanced. Namely, to have the brand blamed for assaulting images and how this changes children’s perception of morality it is necessary to have a whole scope of such ads of different companies presented, otherwise banning just one company is unconstitutional.

Conclusion

As a result, the Bad Frog’s federal damage claims against the authority were dismissed as well as the claims of Bad Frog’s state law damage. So, this is a very unexpected ending since the case of the Frog showing up a finger should have had a completely different turn, namely, blaming the company for depriving children and their fragile psyche. However, the court’s decision to none of the sides’ favor because: “novel and uncertain issues of state law render this an inappropriate case for the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.” To my mind, this case can be considered a tort law case because the tort law may be defined as covering civil wrongs (Edwards, 2011, p. 65). If a person, for example, suffers economic harm, he/she can bring suit. The authority after all said: “ … considered that approval of this label means that the label could appear in grocery and convenience stores, with obvious exposure on the shelf to children of tender age” (United States Court of Appeals, 1998, p.9.). However, as mentioned above the case successfully traced other companies whose commercial campaigns could be easily counted as assaulting. So, why should a certain company suffer economic harm while others are out there doing the same thing? Why not refer to the September 11 attack as a huge agitation of bad behavior in children? (McAdams, 2008, p.189) Besides, Bad Frog Brewery stated that their slogan meant nothing more than ‘I want a Bad Frog beer’; moreover, the company claimed that the gesture on the bottle was their invention and expressed a sign of goodwill and solidarity. So, if the intention was primary, not bad then why should a company suffer economic troubles? Therefore, this is a tort law case.

References

Edwards, L., Edwards, S., Tort Law. 2011. New York: Delmar Cengage Learning.

Feinman, J. Law 101: Everything You Need to Know about the American Legal System. 2006. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McAdams, T. Law, Business, and Society. 2008. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. – 134 F.3d 87.

Raz, J. The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. 2009. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Whaley, D. Problems and Materials on Commercial Law. 2008. New York: Aspen Publishers, Inc.