I wrote about this foldout section that Camel cigarettes placed in Rolling Stone almost three years ago after a large group of the bands (led by Fucked Up and Xiu Xiu) mentioned in the ad sued for having their names entwined in what amounted to a four-page ad for Camel. As you can see, there’s nothing that says “Camel” on the graphic, but the entire back four panels were Camel ads made in a comic-strip style (on top of everything, remember 1997 when Joe Camel got his cartoony butt stubbed out because critics said it violated laws about enticing kids to smoke?). No way were they getting away with this one, right?
Yeah, they actually are. As of this week, from law.com:
The bands sued, arguing that the “integrated” layout implied that they endorsed Camels. In July 2008, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Bonnie Sabraw denied Rolling Stone ‘s motion to strike the suit on anti-SLAPP grounds, holding that a trier of fact could conclude that the feature had been “transformed” into commercial speech by its proximity to the Camel ads.
But the appellate panel in Rolling Stone v. Stewart, A122452, disagreed. The justices found no evidence that R.J. Reynolds, Camel’s parent company, influenced Rolling Stone‘s editorial content or decisions. What’s more, the justices wrote, Rolling Stone‘s main purpose is publishing a magazine — noncommercial speech — not selling cigarettes.
“Simply put, there is no legal precedent for converting noncommercial speech into commercial speech merely based on its proximity to the latter,” Justice Robert Dondero wrote. “There is also no precedent for converting a noncommercial speaker into a commercial speaker in the absence of any direct interest in the product or service being sold.”
(Here’s a link to the blog of the guy who actually did the drawing and probably had no idea what he was getting into).
PURE DENIZEN 
