The Court of Appeals upheld fines against the editor in chief of Le Point magazine, as well as the magazine itself, for publishing photos of Formula 1 drivers with cigarette advertisements on their cars and uniforms. Le Point appealed, arguing (1) Le Point did not intentionally advertise tobacco products; (2) the editor, M. Giesbert, should not be held liable for the contents of the publication; (3) Mild Seven is not a brand which is sold or recognized in France; (4) since the photographer did not know that Mild Seven was a brand of cigarette, there was no intent to advertise tobacco products in the publication; and (5) that freedom of expression prohibits the manipulation of the photograph to remove tobacco advertising from it. The Court of Cassation upheld the appellate court's decision, explaining that France's interest in promoting public health by prohibiting tobacco advertising outweighed Le Point’s right to freedom of expression.
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
A violation of the right to expression, free speech or similar right to express oneself without limitation or censorship. The industry may claim that a regulation infringes on their right to communicate with customers and the public. Similarly, they may claim that mandated warnings infringe on their freedom to communicate as they desire.
The Court of Appeals upheld fines against the editor in chief of Le Point magazine, as well as the magazine itself, for publishing photos of Formula 1 drivers with cigarette advertisements on their cars and uniforms. Le Point appealed, arguing (1) Le Point did not intentionally advertise tobacco products; (2) the editor, M. Giesbert, should not be held liable for the contents of the publication; (3) Mild Seven is not a brand which is sold or recognized in France; (4) since the photographer did not know that Mild Seven was a brand of cigarette, there was no intent to advertise tobacco products in the publication; and (5) that freedom of expression prohibits the manipulation of the photograph to remove tobacco advertising from it. The Court of Cassation upheld the appellate court's decision, explaining that France's interest in promoting public health by prohibiting tobacco advertising outweighed Le Point’s right to freedom of expression.