This is an extract of our Rights Ancillary To Freedom Of Speech document, which we sell as part of our Constitutional Law Outlines collection written by the top tier of Oklahoma City University School Of Law students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Constitutional Law Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
Rights Ancillary to Freedom of Speech
Section 1. Compelled Speech: The Right NOT to Speak West VA. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette (children saluting Flag)
Freedom of speech includes right not to speak- can't be compelled to speak what not on your mind
The freedom to differ isn't limited to things that don't matter much but extends to things which touch the heart.
Wooley v. Maynard State had license plates with words "Live Free or Die" & the Maynards found it offensive & covered it up
Ct. relied heavily on Barnett & said this is also compelled speech which can't be done
Freedom of thought "includes both the right to speak freely & the right to refrain from speaking at all" and they are "complimentary components of freedom of mind"
Compelled disclosure of speaker identity
Talley v. California LA ordinance which prohibited handbill distribution unless speaker identified
Ct. held ordinance void on face & it would restrict freedom of expression &
anonymity of leaflets is engrained in history McIntyre v. Ohio Electives Committee Respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes
We apply exacting scrutiny- which must be narrowly tailored when have passing out of leaflets (doesn't apply same to $ given to political campaigns)
Compelled Access for the Speech of Others
1) Compelled Rights of Reply Red Lion v. FCC FCC controls here & so rules different & so can compel fairness here (repealed now)
Miami Herald v. Tornillo Newspapers can't be compelled to print certain reply info in the paper Its compelled speech & not allowed- its private newspaper
2) Compelled Access by Speakers to Private Property
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins Since Pruneyard was open to the public, the views expressed in passing out pamphlets or seeking signatures "will not likely be identified w/ those of the owner"
Here, Cali State constitution gave the speakers greater rights than Fed &
the mall owner didn't pick out a message it disagreed with
PG& E v. Public Utility Commission Message in the customer bills was objected to by PG&E & commission tried compel PG&E to send it out Ct. invalidate it & said corporation has same speech rights as individuals &
can't compel them to speak things that are opposed to Also this was "content-based" legislation so bad!
Turner Broadcasting v. FCC Acceptation to general rule against compelled expression Ct. said was content neutral & true was a substantial gov. interest in getting free TV to the public, but said no evidence that narrowly tailored so remand
Turner II After hearings & evidence put on Ct. agree satisfied the intermediate scrutiny & was important & narrowly tailored There are different rules for Radio & TV case regulated by FCC
3) Compelled Access to a Parade Hurley v. Irish-American GLIB of Boston Unanimous Opinion Privately organized parade which disallowed GLIB-state court said can't Sup. Ct. said private organization just disallowed a message it disagreed w/ cause didn't want it to be considered as their message
4) Compelled Speech & Military Recruiting on Campus Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights Challenge to the Solomon Amend which says if you don't let military recruiters on campus to recruit then you don't get fed funds Law Schools challenged due to "Don't ask, Don't Tell" policy & it being discrimination on orientation Ct. unanimously upheld cause based on conduct not speech.
Section 2. Freedom of Expressive Association "an individuals freedom to speak, worship, and to petition the gov. for the redress of grievances could be vigorously protected from interference by the State unless a correlative freedom to engage in group effort toward those ends were not also guaranteed" But court has tended to view the right of association as dependent on underlying individual rights of expression There is not right of association in the abstract The right to associate entails a right not to associate, comparable to the right not to speak
Association in Public & Private entails right of expression-usually political
Compelled Disclosure of Membership NAACP v. Alabama Effective advocacy of both public & private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association There is a close nexus btwn freedoms of speech & assembly It is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious, or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny
There is vital relationship between freedom to associate & privacy in one's association
Requirements to disclose your membership is assumed to interfere w/
privacy in association & can lead to harassment, threats, etc.
Shelton v. Tucker Teacher required list every year every organization belonged to in last 5 years Yes state has an interest in investigating a teachers fitness but compelled disclosure is assumed to impair the teachers right of free association The means here were not narrowly tailored to effectuate the state interest
Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm It is an essential prerequisite that the State convincingly show a substantial connection btwn the info sought and a subject of overriding &
compelling state interest. Absent such a nexus, the committee has not demonstrated so cogent an interest in obtaining & making pubic the member info sought so as to justify the substantial abridgment of associational freedom which such disclosures will effect.
The associational right is strong, especially strong where the groups beliefs are already unpopular and we want to avoid a chilling effect
Compelled Disclosure of Political Contributions Buckely v. Valeo The gov. has 3 pretty compelling interests under Strict Scrutiny which here outweigh the single contributor's interests in free associational rights. Must survive SS even if not direct deterrent effect but indirect also While there may be SOME deterrent effects from the disclosures, there is not a LRM to use here according to court Spending $=Speech
Brown v. Socialist Workers Campaign
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Constitutional Law Outlines.