On phone so can't look up older thread, but i just read an article saying how the texas courts ruled in favor of independent brewers. Anyone in the know provide better details?
It's a start:
http://brewednotbattered.wordpress.c...verage-v-tabc/
TABC cannot prohibit you from telling customers or advertising where they can buy your products
TABC cannot require you to label your products by their definition of “beer” and “ale”
TABC cannot prohibit you from advertising the strength of your products by prohibiting words like “strong”, “prewar strength”, “full strength”, etc
So when was this official? I liked using sites like fish finder on dogfish head that told me where their beers were..
I think you misread the first one a bit.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/wlf/2011...ment-freedoms/
Occupy BigTXBooze!
Looks like total victory, TABC crushed.
What's behind Double Bas finally showing up in Texas? This is the first year I have ever seen it, and I see the bottle still calls it masturbatory (wasn't that why you said TABC wouldn't allow it here for so long, lee?).
This was a Federal lawsuit filed by a distributor and, while supported by Texas Beer Freedom (the non-profit advocacy group I founded with some colleagues), we did not lead it.
Not a total victory, as it only sided with plaintiffs on 1st Amendment claims. There were some 14th Amendment and Commerce Clause claims regarding permissible activities of brewers that the suit did not win on.
Thanks for caring about this issue guys. Its obviously important to me, but I'm glad its important to Texas consumers as well.
Double Bas is an asskicker. Can you get Weyerbacher's Blithering Idiot in Texas? It's about 11% or 12%.
I think they put ale on the bottle. It got approved last spring, and they had held the shipments up for 6 months. So we got two years if it the last 5 months.
Strange they didn't fight more for the sales on brewery site.
There was plenty of fight - and still plenty to come. There are some other issues that I can't discuss on that point.
Funny that everyone in here likes this ruling but hated the "corporations are people" ruling at the supreme court...without that the judge couldn't have determined a TABC first amendment violation against the corporations...
Well, some of this ruling is just about leveling the playing field for beer vs wine/alcohol. Wineries can and are encouraged to sell on site, while breweries are SOL on that matter. It makes no sense.
While I see your point, I don't think that is correct. The precedent for Commercial Speech being protected by the 1st Amendment was established by Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), not the Citizen's United case you are referring to.
The first amendment rulings were about beer/ale labeling issues and the gag rule where brewers couldn't tell people where to purchase their product.
Wine and distilled spirits were able to advertise their alcohol content, beer was not. This was one of the rulings.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
