As I reported here last year, the state of Connecticut had banned a Holiday beer called Seriously Bad Elf, because it depicted Santa Claus on the label.
Not to be outdone, Maine has banned another offering from the same company. This one is called Santa’s Butt. The bottle, pictured here, depicts a Santa quaffing a beer while making his list and checking it twice.
The reason given by both states in banning the potables was that “the labels might be attractive to children.” OK, that’s good enough for me. I guess the inflatable NASCAR Budweiser cars, and stand-up cardboard cutouts of Dale Jr, that grace displays are not similarly attractive. News flash to Maine and Connecticut: children are attracted to lots of things, both good and bad. It’s the parent’s place to parent and provide guidance, not yours.
The brews are all imported by The Shelton Brothers, of Belchertown MA. They also have a blog, which unfortunately doesn’t support any kind of syndicated feed that I could find. The blog entry about the Maine case is here. The Maine Civil Liberties Union is representing the Sheltons, and the contention is that the labels have expressive value over and beyond identifying the contents of the bottle. It seems obvious to me that that’s the case; if they sold posters of either or both of the labels, I’d buy one. And if I see the beer for sale around here, I’ll buy a six-pack, at least.
-k-
Technorati Tags: mainecivillibertiesunion, MCLU, sheltonbrothers
Ha ha ha! If Maine and Connecticut were really banning alcoholic products because the packaging might be attractive to children, more than half would be off the shelves. Kids love anything shiny or bright, and I bet more than half the beers, wine coolers, and similar age restricted alcoholic products, would fail any “unattractive to kids” rule, if such a thing were possible to quantify.
The MCLU is going about this the wrong way, BTW. Just because the labels have expressive value beyond mere packaging, doesn’t follow that it should be placed on a beer bottle. The prosecution could argue that no one is looking to limit the freedom of expression of the label’s artist, but simply limiting the use of the graphic to non-packaging of alcohol products, as in printing on a poster or brochure.
The right way to defend this is to expose it for the ludicrous thought that it is. Bring a baby and a pack of Michelob to court and test whether the baby is attracted to the packaging or not. Then have the prosecution try to ban any beer packaging that is determined to be attractive to kids.