Scarlett Folsom appeals from an order of the Pickens County Superior Court affirming the City of Jasper’s decision to suspend Folsom’s liquor license for thirty days and impose a one-year probationary period. The punishment was imposed after the City determined that Folsom and her establishment, the Blue Rodeo Cafe, were guilty of three violations of the City’s Alcoholic Beverages Ordinance. The City claimed that Folsom twice violated the Ordinance’s restrictions on alcohol advertisements, and that the third violation occurred when a patron of the Cafe was allegedly battered by an employee of the Cafe. Because the relevant parts of the City’s Alcoholic Beverages Ordinance fail to pass constitutional scrutiny, we reverse. 1. The Ordinance involved in this case prohibits all “advertisements of any kind advertising alcoholic beverages for sale or advertising the brand names or prices of alcoholic beverages. . .” The Ordinance also bans businesses from advertising their business name or trade name if that name includes any of the specifically prohibited words listed in the Ordinance, all of which are related to alcohol. The City cited the Cafe for two violations of this portion of the Ordinance. The first violation involved a newspaper advertisement for a New Year’s Eve party that promoted “Balloon Drops, Party Favors, and Champagne all for $15.00 per person.” The second violation occurred when the Cafe purchased another newspaper advertisement promoting a “Miller Lite Promotion Party Saturday Night.” The Cafe argues that the Ordinance constitutes a “blanket prohibition against truthful, non-misleading speech about a lawful product” in violation of the First Amendment. We agree.
In Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island ,1 the United States Supreme Court set forth the standard for determining when laws restricting commercial speech related to alcoholic beverages violate the First Amendment.
