The Virginia Attorney General's office responded July 11 to a lawsuit filed by The Cavalier Daily and Virginia Tech's Collegiate Times. The attorney general argued that the state's prohibition of alcohol advertisements in student newspapers is constitutional because it advances a substantial government interest. According to a statement, the state does not believe that the newspapers have suffered any damages because of the regulation and questions whether or not The Cavalier Daily and the Collegiate Times qualify as a college student publication under the regulation.
The regulation, which was implemented in 1985 -- two years after the state officially raised the drinking age to 21 -- defines a "college student newspaper" as: "any college or university publication that is prepared, edited or published primarily by students at such institution, is sanctioned as a curricular or extra-curricular activity by such institution and which is distributed or intended to be distributed primarily to persons under 21 years of age."
Rebecca Glenberg, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia and attorney for the plaintiffs, said that the state's response did not come as a surprise.
"The answer they filed was fairly typical, and there's not much to be gleaned from it," Glenberg said. "The answer to a complaint is just a series of denials. There aren't any clues."
Cavalier Daily Editor-in-Chief Mike Slaven shared this sentiment and said he expected the lawsuit to be a long process.
"We do have confidence that ultimately our case will succeed," Slaven said.
Slaven believes that The Cavalier Daily and the Collegiate Times fall under the class of "college newspaper." Thus, he said it is unconstitutional to enforce a statute that essentially denies a college newspaper its First Amendment rights.
"I don't think it's fair they put college papers into a different category than other media," Slaven said. "The argument and case that we filed argues that separating different media into classes that have different rights is not constitutional."
A representive of the attorney general's office declined to comment because of the pending litigation.