In their article “CanWest huffs and puffs; free speech burns” [July 17-24], Carel Moiseiwitsch and Gordon Murray claim that CanWest MediaWorks’ commitment to free speech rings hollow in the face of its lawsuit against them for a satirical version of the Vancouver Sun on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

They fail to mention a highly relevant legal case. CanWest is challenging the federal Food and Drugs Act prohibition of consumer advertising of prescription drugs in the Ontario Superior Court, claiming that the law infringes on its freedom of expression.

Just what sort of free-speech infringement is this? CanWest can run editorial content on medicines. The Ontario case is about its right to sell advertising space to drug companies.

Like most countries, Canada prohibits these ads as a public-health measure. The recent U.S. experience with the heavily advertised arthritis drug Vioxx (rofecoxib) should give anyone pause. Vioxx caused an estimated 88,000 to 140,000 cases of excess coronary heart disease over five years. For four of those years, the manufacturer continued its advertising blitz despite evidence of heart attack risks. Vioxx was costlier and no more effective than other arthritis drugs.

Prescription drug advertising is also a major cost driver. With medicines already our fastest growing health care cost, this legal case has major implications for public health care.

So here’s a question: have you heard much about the Ontario legal case in CanWest media? Moiseiwitsch and Murray point out that heavy media concentration means that CanWest’s editorial policies affect which stories do and do not reach the public.

At heart is what we mean as a society by free-speech rights. Are we talking about a person’s right to freedom of expression—including political satire—or a corporation’s right to put profits before public health?

> Barbara Mintzes / Vancouver