Anatomically correct animals vs the law

[caikgoch]

I just tripped over this and found it very interesting.
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/i...er_la.html

<span><span>Courtesy Illustration | FlyingDogAles.comFlying Dog Brewery celebrates its 20th anniversary with this "Raging Bitch" Belgian IPA beer label. The company website notes: "Two inflammatory words ... one wild drink."</span></span>GRAND RAPIDS, MI - State liquor commissioners who initially rejected the "Raging Bitch" beer label do not have immunity if they violated Flying Dog Brewery's constitutional rights, a federal appeals panel ruled.
A U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals panel reversed a federal judge's ruling that granted the commissioners immunity.
U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker in Grand Rapids earlier granted summary judgment in favor of the commissioners based on quasi-judicial immunity, for acting in judicial roles, and qualified immunity, which prohibits damages against a government official unless the official violated statutory or constitutional rights.
"By the time the Administrative Commissioners banned Flying Dog's beer label in 2009, the clear line of Supreme Court commercial speech precedents, coupled with our own decision in (an unrelated case) ... should have placed any reasonable state liquor commissioner on notice that banning a beer label based on its content would violate the First Amendment ...," Circuit Judge Jane Stranch wrote in a 56-page opinion.
She said that the case would be remanded to U.S. District Court in Grand Rapids.
Because Jonker ruled that the commissioners had immunity, he did not determine if the Administrative Commissioners violated Flying Dog's "clearly established First Amendment rights" in the initial denial of the controversial label.
Related: Michigan's liquor commissioners immune to 'Raging Bitch' beer lawsuit
Related: Raging mad brewer files lawsuit against state over beer label

Circuit Judge Karen Nelson Moore concurred in the ruling, but said she would have remanded the case only to determine damages.
"Because I would hold that the Commissioners violated Flying Dog's clearly established First Amendment Rights by denying Flying Dog's registration request based on the content of the beer bottle label, I must dissent. I would remand only for a determination of the amount of damages," she said.
The creators of Flying Dog beers, a Maryland-based craft brewmaker, sought to develop an edgy reputation for the company. Co-founder George Stranahan says its image is inspired by journalist and author Hunter S. Thompson, and the brewery's marketing "promotes the irreverent 'Gonzo' spirit and outlook for which Thompson is noted," court records said.
The Liquor Control Commission, or LCC, initially denied registration of its "Raging Bitch" label as "detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public." After the LCC reversed its decision, and granted the request for a license, Flying Dog sought damages from five commissioners.
Jonker said there are safeguards and an appeal process for those unhappy with LCC rulings.
"To effectively and impartially act in their regulatory role, commissioners must be able to make decisions free of the constant threat of litigation against them in their individual capacities. Without absolute immunity, the commission would constantly fear being subject to personal liability for what amounts to performing a judicial function - interpreting and applying liquor laws and regulations to the facts of a particular case," he wrote in an earlier opinion.
The appeals court said: "The commissioners have no evidence - anecdotal, empirical, or otherwise - that the sight of the 'Raging Bitch' label would harm the citizens of Michigan."
"In light of the governing Supreme Court authority and our decision to set aside the district court's immunity rulings, we remand the case to the district court for further proceedings on the issue of whether the Administrative Commissioners violated Flying Dog Brewery's clearly established First Amendment rights.
"Accordingly, we reverse the district court's decision to grant the commissioners quasi-judicial and qualified immunity and remand the case to district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."
The ruling affects Administrative Commissioners: Nida Samona, Donald Weatherspoon and Patrick Gagliard, the ruling said. Two Hearing Commissioners are not part of the lawsuit.

[Cynolove693]

 Lol these people need to lighten up, a beer label isn't something worth getting butthurt over [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/laugh.png[/img]
Btw Ive had this beer before, pretty decent, I like it, buy it any time I find it in a liquor store [img]<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/smile.png[/img]

[Cynolove693]

Flying dog brewery put out an ale as well that had a zoo reference to it, called "Doggie style" but it doesn't have an anatomically correct animal on it, so nobody got offended by it, as far as I've found..
The way I look at it is we all have a vagina or a penis, so why is it so offensive that animals are shown with them, isn't that just the natural display of things?? lol
Ps: it won't let me edit out the pic in this post, it just popped up out of nowhere again..
 

[caikgoch]

The artwork was a commissioned poster by a real live pro artist.    It was kinda controversial but hey, who is exposing minors to beer?    It came as a surprise to everyone when one government employee decided to gum up the works.