POLITICS

The government continues to try to censor this wine maker. The owner is not getting it. – Because dot com


Jim Caruso, chief executive of Flying Dog Brewery, called his business a “first amendment drink.” Because he kept going to court to defend the beer label.

It began in 1995, when the Colorado Liquor Commission objected to the label “Good Bear, No Shit.”

The bureaucrats told him, “Pull the beer from the market, or we will suspend your license,” he said in my new video. That could put him out of business.

I tell Caruso, “I’m glad we were able to say ‘chi’ in this interview, but I can see why the regulators didn’t want the word.”

“Want freedom of speech?” Caruso responds. “You have to respect it among others.”

After four years of litigation, the Colorado Supreme Court overturned the Wine Commission, ruling that “dirty” freedom of speech is not.

The Michigan Wine Commission then banned another Caruso beer, “Raging Beach” (remember, it’s “flying” Dogs“Alcoholism).

Bureaucrats say the label is “harmful to the health, safety and well-being of ordinary people.” They told Caruso, “Oprah doesn’t use the word on her show.”

Oprah?

Michigan police ordered him to pull Raging Beach off the shelf, or they confiscated it.

Caruso went to court again.

“Do you really want to live in a country where government bureaucrats, based on will and personal preference, can censor what they don’t like?” Caruso asks. “Movies, books, music, news stories?”

“No,” I replied. “But I don’t want to quarrel over the name of the beer. Do you care? Change the name of the beer.”

Caruso replies, “All these wars are being fought on the margins. This is where everything is controversial.” “When you’re defending something mainstream, it’s too late.”

After six more years on the court, he won again. The court said, “Banning a label for obscenity violates the First Amendment.”

You think the bureaucrats knew this, since the federal government has already approved Caruso beer. In fact, every alcoholic in America must first submit each label to the federal bureaucracy called the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

Which makes me wonder: why does each state need separate control?

I doubt the answer is: bureaucrats want jobs, and politicians want to waste our money.

On top of the Fed’s hundreds of page rules, Caruso complains: “Every state has its own rules. I think Maryland is 300-something pages, at a single interval …

This year, the North Carolina Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission rejected another Caruso beer, “Freeze Season.”

The label shows a cartoon image in front of the fire. It could be a naked man… or not. If you trim it, a tiny line can represent one Gender.

Oh no! Who will save us? BEARUCRATES OF NORTH CAROLINA!

They told Caruso that citing “inappropriate” and “Rule 15B1003-3 (2)” of children being exposed to that image, which prohibits labels that are “unspoken, unmoved or tasted bad”.

Bureaucrats love to write lines like “Rule 15b 1003-3 (2)”. North Carolina has already rejected more than 300 beer labels – such as “Polygamous Porter,” “Beergazm” and “Hedonism”.

Most rejected breweries usually sell their banned beer in other states, but Caruso sues. It is better for him to spend his own money to defend a policy.

A few days before her first court hearing, North Carolina abruptly approved her beer, saying their change of heart “made the case mute.”

But Caruso somehow followed suit, saying: “It’s not about a beer label. It’s about repealing an unconstitutional law!”

He added, “If children were protected before, and now they have lifted the ban, they are either sacrificing children on the altar to avoid an initial hearing, or they are just full of shit.”

The North Carolina Wine Commission will not agree to the interview.

Copyright 2021 by JFS Productions Inc.



Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button