In the US, courts make that decision, essentially by interpreting a 225-year-old text, and if that deprives the government of some techniques that might reduce the death toll from cigarettes – currently estimated at 443,000 Americans every year – so be it. In Australia, where freedom of expression is not given explicit constitutional protection, courts are much more likely to respect the right of democratically elected governments to strike the proper balance.
但是，这些差异的背后是一个更大的问题：谁来决定公共健康和言论自由之间恰当的平衡？在美国，这由法院决定——从根本上说是通过如何解读有着225年历史的法律条文来决定——这会让政府可能减少香烟致死人数（最新数据表明每年有443000人）的方案受挫？也得执行。在澳大利亚，言论自由并没有宪法明文予以保护，法庭有更大的可能尊重民主选出的政府决定恰当平衡的权利。