This is a multiple-choice quiz:

1. Advocates of pending legislation to ban tobacco advertising and promotion are:

A. Communists.

B. "Card-carrying Americans."

C. Foes of freedom of speech, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

2. A tobacco company that associates Pravda with the legislation to ban tobacco ads is:

A. "Redbaiting."

B. Seizing on an attention-grabbing "device to draw attention to the censorship issue."

3. A newspaper or magazine publisher that declines tobacco advertising is:

A. A Pravda-like censor.

B. Exercising freedom of the press, another right guaranteed by the First Amendment.

You won't find "the" answers printed upside down here, but you will find some illumination below. Under the rules, you can't call for Philip Morris if you need help.

In November, Guy L. Smith IV, vice president for corporate affairs of Philip Morris U.S.A., sent a press kit to "a select group of newspaper editors and television news directors" -- 500 to 600 of them.

Three eye-catching items were in the kit:

A glossy black brochure. On the front, in deep red, was a reproduction of a medal, the Order of Lenin, which is the highest honor conferred by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and, in white, the words, "One world-famous newspaper without cigarette advertising." In the inside pocket was a copy of Pravda.

A handsome, 444-page book published by Philip Morris, "American Voices: Prize-winning Essays on Freedom of Speech, Censorship & Advertising Bans." On the dust jacket, the title and subtitle are overlaid on the billowing red, white and blue of the Stars and Stripes.

A videotape cassette of excerpts of a cross-section of conflicting views of restrictions on commercial speech. The tape was made by the Institute of Democratic Communication at Boston University from a forum that it sponsored under a $100,000 no-strings grant from Philip Morris.

The Pravda gambit has brought charges of at least implicit redbaiting by three principal advocates of the proposed law to ban tobacco ads: Dr. James S. Todd, senior deputy executive vice president of the American Medical Association, and Reps. Mike Synar (D-Kan.) and Bob Whittaker (R-Kan.), the authors of two ad-ban bills pending in the House.

Todd, asked if the brochure was implied redbaiting, said: "I don't think it's implied. I think it's a perversion and a flat-out effort to discredit us. I feel very strongly that Philip Morris has used this material inappropriately for its own vested interest, when the intent was to raise the issue of when should free speech be circumscribed in the public interest."

Synar accused Philip Morris of "using the basest, grossest form of redbaiting to protect their multibillion-dollar investment, which costs young people their health and older Americans their lives."

Said Whittaker: "To suggest, as Philip Morris has, that individuals opposed to tobacco advertising are somehow communist sympathizers is nothing short of absurd. Many of us in Congress have a very real concern about the significant and devastating impact which tobacco advertising is having on our nation's young people.

"Philip Morris, while feigning support and concern for the Constitution, is only concerned with how much money they can make selling tobacco products to anyone who will buy them. They couldn't care less that their advertising attracts thousands of young people, many not even of legal age, to start smoking every year."

Philip Morris' Smith said he was surprised that some advocates of a ban were inferring from the press kit that the company had implied they were communist sympathizers.

"Yes, I am surprised," he said. "All we're saying is that that newspaper {Pravda} doesn't run cigarette advertising or any kind of advertising. It doesn't in any way imply that they're communists or anything else. I'm sure that they're all great Americans. I'm certain that they're all card-carrying Americans.

"The purpose is to make the point that advertising bans are a form of censorship, and everything that goes into Pravda is censored," he continued. "I am glad I don't have to defend a form of censorship. ... They are defending censorship."

The company was also severely chastised by Boston University Professor James C. Thomson Jr., one of the seven judges in the essay competition that produced American Voices and director of the institute that arranged and conducted the forum (titled, "Free Speech and Advertising -- Who Draws the Line?") in Boston's historic Faneuil Hall last April.

Thomson unstintingly praised Philip Morris for taking a hands-off approach to the forum and giving him unfettered control from start to finish. "Both sides took their licks on this," and the institute's videotape of excerpts is "sufficiently frank and full that both sides will shudder during various moments," he said. "I am more proud of the tape than of any joint enterprise I have ever put together in my academic life."

But, like Todd and the legislators, Thomson was outraged by the Pravda gambit. "Philip Morris would have been more fair-minded and courageous had it used, instead of Pravda, an issue of the Christian Science Monitor," he said. "This would have posed a greater challenge to the ingenuity of its copywriters."

Thomson said that he "chewed out" Philip Morris, because "the juxtaposition of our videotape with materials that equate proponents of cigarette advertising bans with Leninist totalitarianism is a breach of fairness and taste," and because "issuing this videotape for promotional purposes without my express permission was a breach of contract" with the institute.

He said he got from Smith "a complete apology...on behalf of Philip Morris and an assurance that such breach of contract would not happen again."

Smith called the press kit "merely a device to draw attention to the censorship issue." In addition to many magazines, tobacco ads aren't accepted by 11 mostly small U.S. newspapers, including the Christian Science Monitor, and eight dailies in Ontario, including Canada's largest paper.

Smith was asked about the refusal of many newspapers to carry ads for a wide variety of legal products other than tobacco, including pornographic films, family-planning services, alcoholic beverages and, in rare cases, coffee and tea. Their publishers say the First Amendment gives them the right to select the ads as well as the news they print.

"I agree that it's {an} editor's absolute right to decide what goes in his newspaper, both news and ads," Smith said. "Now, it's the editor's right, not the government's right. It's censorship. You can call it editing. I will take the position it is censorship. You have the right. The government doesn't."

The book American Voices is the fruit of the Philip Morris Magazine Essay Competition, part of the company's campaign to defeat the proposed ad-ban legislation. The book contains the 55 winning essay whose authors together won $81,000. When asked to give a reason for entering the contest, none of the nearly 4,000 contestants said it was for money. Most responses resembled those given by the District, Maryland and Virginia winners.

"I wanted to write in defense of a constitutional right that addresses an unpopular activity," wrote District lawyer David Bunning. "The opportunity to uphold and defend the First Amendment is something we should all take seriously," said Baltimore "proofreader/editor/writer" Mary A. McAllister. "Government censorship of printed matter violates the freedom of the press," wrote Fairfax City lawyer Stephen P. Halbrook.

Smith readily acknowledged that the book was not a balanced presentation of both sides of the issue. "It's extremely one-sided," Smith said. "The purpose...was to develop essays and ideas on why banning tobacco advertising was a bad idea."

The seven contest judges, each of whom was paid $5,000, included Elizabeth Carpenter, former press secretary for Lady Bird Johnson, and Hugh Sidey, Washington contributing editor of Time magazine.

"I sure do worry about tampering with {the First Amendment}," Carpenter said in Austin, Tex. She said she has good friends at the company, which she praised for having "done a great deal for the women's movement." As did other judges, Carpenter rated the $5,000 as modest compensation.

All of the judges "worked very, very hard" and took much more time than they had expected, she said.

Author Nora Ephron said she had turned down an offer from Carpenter to be a judge. "I said, well, Liz, you know, what do you mean a Philip Morris First Amendment contest? She's very earthy and nice. She said that it's this essay contest. I said well, it sounds all right. Have them send me the papers.

"The next morning, I got a large package, including a...piece of paper that described the contest. It specifically asked for essays that specifically contained the words 'smoking and the First Amendment.' They were not asking for some wonderful vague essay... .

"As a result, I called Philip Morris at 9:01 a.m. in the morning, the first minute of business hours. I reached the secretary to whoever signed the cover letter and said I couldn't be a judge. Then I threw the packet in the trash."

What had troubled her? "I simply didn't want to be a judge in a contest that was clearly for the benefit of Philip Morris and had no other motive, so far as I can see, than to help the cigarette industry sell cigarettes.

"Incidentally, I might add, if that had not been enough, I would get a phone call from a reporter asking me how I could lend my name to this endeavor, and I knew I wouldn't have a decent answer."