Commercial advertising is protected free speech. Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809.
Campaign expenditure limitations unduly restrict political expression. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1.
Campaign expenditure limitations unduly restrict political expression. Press Asso. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539.
Prior restraint of news media to limit pretrial publicity is discussed. Nebraska Press Asso. v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539.
A board of education may not prevent a non-union teacher from speaking of a bargaining issue at an open meeting. Madison School Dist. v. Wis. Emp. Comm. 429 U.S. 167.
Corporations' free speech rights are discussed. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978).
The 1st amendment prohibited the prosecution of a newspaper for publishing confidential proceedings of a commission investigating judicial conduct. Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978).
Collective activity undertaken to obtain meaningful access to courts is a fundamental right protected by the 1st amendment. In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978).
A newspaper office may be searched for evidence of a crime even though the newspaper is not suspected of a crime. Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978).
The 1st amendment does not guarantee the public's or media's right of access to sources of information within government control. Houchins v. KQED, Inc. 438 U.S. 1 (1978).
Public employe's private, as well as public, speech is protected. Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist. 439 U.S. 410 (1979).
The press and public have no constitutional right to attend a pretrial suppression hearing where the defendant demands a closed hearing to avoid prejudicial publicity. Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979).
A public utility had the free speech right to enclose with bills inserts discussing controversial issues of public policy. Consolidated Edison v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 530 (1980).
The test for determining whether commercial speech is protected is discussed. Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).
Absent an overriding interest articulated in findings, a criminal trial must be open to the public. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980).
An ordinance prohibiting a live dancing exhibition violated the free speech clause. Schad v. Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61 (1981).
A statute prohibiting nude dancing in establishments licensed by a state to sell liquor was valid under the 21st amendment. New York State Liquor Authority v. Bellanca, 452 U.S. 714 (1981).
A statute which prohibits placing unstamped mailable matter in any box approved by the U.S. postal service does not violate the free speech clause. U. S. Postal Service v. Greenburgh Civic Assn. 453 U.S. 114 (1981).
An ordinance which placed substantial restrictions on billboards other than those used for onsite commercial advertising violated the free speech clause. Metromedia v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490 (1981).
A public university that provided a forum to many student groups but excluded religious student groups violated the principle that state regulation of speech should be content-neutral. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981).
An ordinance regulating the sale of drug paraphernalia was constitutional. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489 (1982).
A school board's discretion to determine the contents of school libraries may not be exercised in a narrowly partisan or political manner. Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).
States are entitled to greater leeway in the regulation of pornographic depictions of children. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982).
The discharge of public employe did not deny free speech rights, under the facts of the case. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983).
A sidewalk is a "public forum". The prohibition of leaflets denied free speech. U.S. v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983).
The government's substantial interest in maintaining the park in the heart of the capital in an attractive condition sustained a regulation against camping or overnight sleeping in public parks. Free speech was not denied. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-violence, 468 U.S. 288 (1984).
A school district did not violate the free speech clause by disciplining a student for giving an offensively lewd and indecent speech at a school assembly. Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
School administrators may exercise control over style and content of student speech in school-sponsored activities as long as control is reasonably related to "legitimate pedagogical concerns". Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
A state may not categorically ban targeted, direct-mail advertising by attorneys. Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Assn. 486 U.S. 466 (1988).
A Brookfield ordinance prohibiting picketing of individuals' residences was not facially invalid under the free speech clause. Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (1988).
A protester's conviction for flag desecration violated the right of free speech. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1989).
The 1st amendment prohibits employment decisions concerning low-level public employees to be based upon political patronage. Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois, 497 U.S. 62, 111 L. Ed. 2d 52 (1990).
A public indecency statute barring public nudity and requiring dancers to wear pasties and G-strings did not violate the right of free expression. Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. 501 U.S. 560, 115 L. Ed. 2d 504 (1991).
Press freedom does not confer a constitutional right to disregard promises that would otherwise be enforceable under state law. A possible promissory estoppel action for breaching an agreement to keep source confidential was not barred. Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 115 L. Ed. 2d 586 (1991).
A county ordinance requiring a permit for all parades and public assemblies which gave the county administrator power to adjust permit fees to meet the police expense incident to the assembly violated the 1st amendment as an impermissible assessment of the permittee's speech content was required to determine the expenses to be incurred in maintaining order at the assembly. Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 120 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1992).
Exclusion of "fighting words" from free speech protections did not justify a city ordinance banning displays that convey messages of racial, gender or religious intolerance. A city may not selectively ban fighting words based on the particular idea expressed. R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 120 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992).
A city ban on newsracks for commercial publications violated the right to free speech where the city faiL. Ed. to establish a "reasonable fit" between its legitimate interest in safety and aesthetics and the ban. Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, 507 U.S. 410, 123 L. Ed. 2d 99 (1993).
Denial of the use of a school building to a church seeking to exhibit a film when a nonsectarian group would have been allowed the use of the building to show a secular film on the same topic violated the right of free speech. Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches, 508 U.S. 34, 124 L. Ed. 2d 352 (1993).
For a government employe's speech to be protected, the speech must be on a matter of public concern and the employe's interest in expressing himself or herself on the matter must outweigh the the injury the speech could cause the employer in providing public services through its employes. Waters v. Churchill, 511 U.S. 661, 128 L. Ed. 2d 686 (1994). See also Burkes v. Klauser, 185 Wis. 2d 309, 517 N.W.2d 502 (1994).
A city's ban on almost all residential signs violated the right of free speech. City of LaDue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 26, 129 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1994).
An Ohio statute prohibiting the distribution of anonymous campaign literature violated the right of free speech. McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334, 131 L. Ed. 2d 426 (1995).
The selection of contingents that will make up a parade is entitled to free speech protection. A parade sponsor's free speech rights include the right to deny a group's participation who intends to convey a message contrary to the sponsor's. Hurley v. Irish-American Gay Group, 515 U.S. 557, 132 L. Ed. 2d 487 (1995).
A state university that funded printing of a broad range of student publications but denied funding for printing the publication of a student religious group violated free speech guarantees and was not excused by the need to comply with the establishment of religion clause of the constitution. Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 132 L. Ed. 2d (1995).
As with government employes whose employment may not be terminated for exercising 1st amendment rights, independent contractors may not have their government contracts terminated for refusing to support a political party or its candidates or for exercising free speech rights. Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 135 L. Ed. 2d 843 (1996) and O'Hare Truck Service v. Northlake, 518 U.S. 712, 135 L. Ed. 2d 874 (1996).
The constitutionality of injunctions restraining actions by abortion clinic protesters is discussed. Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network, 519 U.S. 357, 137 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1997).
Assessments against commodity producers under an agricultural marketing order to pay for the costs of generic advertising did not violate the producer's free speech rights. Glickaman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. 521 U.S. 457, 138 L. Ed. 2d 585 (1997).
A public broadcasting network's decision to exclude an independent candidate who had little public support was a permissible exercise of journalistic discretion. Arkansas Educational TV v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666, 140 L. Ed. 2d 875 (1998).
It is a violation of the 4th amendment for police to bring members of the media or other 3rd persons into a home during the execution of a warrant when the presence of the 3rd persons in the home is not in aid of the execution of the warrant. Wilson v. Layne, 526 US 603, 143 L. Ed. 2d 818 (1999).
The financing of student organizations through mandatory student fees does not violate the 1st amendment if viewpoint neutrality is the operational principal. Board of Regents v. Southworth, 529 US ___, 146 L. Ed. 2d 193 (2000).
An ordinance prohibiting public nudity was valid when the government's asserted interest was combating the secondary effect associated with adult entertainment and was unrelated to suppression of the erotic message of nude dancing. Erie v. Pap's A.M. 529 US ___, 146 L. Ed. 2d 265 (2000).
A statute that makes it unlawful within regulated areas for any person to "knowingly approach" within eight feet of another person, without that person's consent, "for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person" is constitutional. Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. ___, 147 L. Ed. 2d 597 (2000)
Generally, the 1st Amendment protects a person from being removed from public employment for purely political reasons. However, exemptions from the patronage dismissal ban are allowed on the theory that a newly elected administration has a legitimate interest in implementing the broad policies it was elected to implement without interference from disloyal employees. Pleva v. Norquist, 195 F.3d 905 (1999).
The dividing line between publications that may be denied to prisoners and those that may not is not a matter of administrative grace but of constitutional right. Gaugh v. Schmidt, 369 F. Supp. 877.
A town board was restrained from discharging its police chief until the issue of impermissible consideration of the chief's political activities was resolved. Kuhlmann v. Bloomfield Tp. 521 F. Supp. 1242 (1981).
Content neutral size restrictions placed on a banner proclaiming "Church/State--Keep Them Separate", after it was hung in the state capitol rotunda served the state's significant interest in protecting the capitol from visual degradation. That a Christmas tree and Menorah in the rotunda were allowed to remain without restriction did not prove content based discrimination. Gaylor v. Thompson, 939 F. Supp. 1363 (1996).
Behind the Curtain of Privacy: How Obscenity Law Inhibits the Expression of Ideas About Sex and Gender. Peterson. 1998 WLR 625.
Testimonial privilege of newsmen. Baxter, 55 MLR 184.
Academic freedom; some tentative guidelines. Keith, 55 MLR 379.
Protection of commercial speech. 60 MLR 138.
Zurcher: third party searches and freedom of the press. Cantrell. 62 MLR 35 (1978).
A newspaper cannot constitutionally be compelled to publish a paid advertisement designed to be an editorial response to previous newspaper reports. 64 MLR 361 (1980).
Granting access to private shopping center property for free speech purposes on the basis of a state constitutional provision does not violate owner's federal constitutional property rights or first amendment free speech rights. 64 MLR 507 (1981).
First amendment and freedom of press: A revised approach to marketplace of ideas concept. Gary. 72 MLR 187 (1989).
Architectural Appearances Ordinances and the 1st Amendment. Rice. 76 MLR 439 (1992).
Hate Crimes: New Limits on the Scope of the 1st Amendment. Resler. 77 MLR 415 (1994).
Improving the Odds of the Central Hudson Balancing Test; Restricting Commercial Speech as a Last Resort. Gulling. 81 MLR 873 (1998).
Researcher-subject testimonial privilege. Newels and Lehman, 1971 WLR 1085.
Freedom of speech, expression and action. Hilmes, 1971 WLR 1209.
Free speech on premises of privately owned shopping center. Felsenthal, 1973 WLR 612.
Constitutional protection of critical speech and the public figure doctrine: Retreat by reaffirmation. 1980 WLR 568.
Corporate "persons" and freedom of speech: The political impact of legal mythology. Payton and Bartlett, 1981 WLR 494.
Lamb's Chapel v. Center Mortices Union Free School District: Creating Greater Protection Religious Speech Through the Illusion of Public Forum Analysis. Ehrmann. 1994 WLR 965.
The Journalist's Privilege. Kassel. Wis. Law. Feb. 1996.
The Price of Free Speech: Regents v. Southworth. Furlow. Wis. Law. June 2000.
LIBEL
The burden of proof and determination of damages in libel cases is discussed. Dalton v. Meister, 52 Wis. 2d 173, 188 N.W.2d 494.
In a libel action involving a public figure or a matter of public concern, the defendant is entitled to the "clear and convincing" burden of proof and also to a finding of the type of malice involved. Polzin v. Helmbrecht, 54 Wis. 2d 578, 196 N.W.2d 685.
In determining punitive damages in libel cases it is relevant to consider the maximum fine for a similar offense under the criminal code. Wozniak v. Local 1111 of UE, 57 Wis. 2d 725, 205 N.W.2d 369.
The executive committee of the medical staff of a private hospital is not a quasi-judicial body so as to render a letter to it privileged. DiMiceli v. Klieger, 58 Wis. 2d 359, 206 N.W.2d 184.
"Public figure" is defined. The constitutional protections of news media and individual defamers are discussed. Denny v. Mertz, 106 Wis. 2d 636, 318 N.W.2d 141 (1982).
A private citizen may become a public figure regarding a particular issue that is of substantial public interest and must prove actual malice to prevail in a libel action. Weigel v. Capital Times Co. 145 Wis. 2d 71, 426 N.W.2d 43 (Ct. App. 1988).
Discussion of the absolute privilege to defame in the course of judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. Rady v. Lutz, 150 Wis. 2d 643, 444 N.W.2d 58 (Ct. App. 1989).
A fire department captain with considerable power and discretion is a public official who must meet the malice requirement. Defendant firefighters had a common law privilege to comment in writing on the captain's fitness for office. Miller v. Minority Brotherhood, 158 Wis. 2d 589, 463 N.W.2d 690 (Ct. App. 1990).
Where a defamation plaintiff is a public figure there must be proof of actual malice. The deliberate choice of one interpretation of a number of possible interpretations does not create a jury issue of actual malice. The selective destruction by a defendant of materials likely to be relevant to defamation litigation allows an inference that the materials would have provided evidence of actual malice. Torgerson v. Journal/Sentinel, Inc. 210 Wis. 2d 525, 563 N.W.2d 472 (1997).
For purposes of libel law, a "public figure" who must prove malice includes a person who by being drawn into or interjecting himself or herself into a public controversy becomes a public figure for a limited purpose because of involvement in the particular controversy, which status can be created without purposeful or voluntary conduct by the individual involved. Erdmann v. SF Broadcasting of Green Bay, Inc. 229 Wis. 2d 156, 599 N.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1999).
A "public dispute" is not simply a matter of interest to the public. It must be a real dispute, the outcome of which affects the general public in an appreciable way. Essentially private concerns do not become public controversies because they attract attention; its ramifications must be felt by persons who are not direct participants. Maguire v. Journal Sentinel, Inc. 2000 WI App 4, 232 Wis. 2d 236, 605 N.W.2d 881.
State libel laws are preempted by federal labor laws to the extent statements made without knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth are at issue. Old Dominion Br. No. 496, Nat. Asso., Letter Car. v. Austin, 418 U.S. 264.
A public figure who sues media companies for libel may inquire into the editorial processes of those responsible where proof of "actual malice" is required for recovery. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979).
"Public figure" principle in libel cases are discussed. Wolston v. Reader's Digest Assn., Inc. 443 U.S. 157 (1979).
