I,3 Free speech; libel. Section 3. Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right, and no laws shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence, and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous be true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.
FREE SPEECH
A city can validly prohibit picketing of private homes where the subject of the picketing has no relationship to any activity carried on there. Wauwatosa v. King, 49 Wis. 2d 398, 182 N.W.2d 530.
A journalist has a constitutional right to the privilege not to disclose his sources of information received in confidential relationship, but when such confidence is in conflict with the public's overriding need to know, it must yield to the interest of justice. The state need not affirmatively demonstrate proof of compelling need or lack of an alternative method of obtaining the information sought, where the crimes involved and the prevention of repetition of such crimes constitute a compelling need. State v. Knops, 49 Wis. 2d 647, 183 N.W.2d 93.
Only that portion of an obscenity ordinance defining obscenity in Roth-Memoirs terms is unconstitutional, and the remainder is a viable, effective ordinance when supplemented by the supreme court's Chobot obscenity definition "community standards" definition. Madison v. Nickel, 66 Wis. 2d 71, 223 N.W.2d 865.
The majority representative's exclusive right to represent all employes in a bargaining unit precludes speech by others in the form of bargaining or negotiating for a labor agreement, the infringement on speech being justified by the necessity to avoid the dangers attendant upon relative chaos in labor-management relations. Madison Jt. Sch. Dist. No. 8 v. WERC, 69 Wis. 2d 200, 231 N.W.2d 206.
Prohibiting the solicitation of prostitutes, does not violate the right of free speech. Shillcutt v. State, 74 Wis. 2d 642, 247 N.W.2d 694.
Where a radio talk show announcer was fired for allowing talk show guests to slander minorities, the announcer's right of free speech was not infringed. Augustine v. Anti-Defamation Lg. B'nai B'rith, 75 Wis. 2d 207, 249 N.W.2d 547.
Where the record did not indicate that a tenant union would provide inadequate, unethical or complex legal advice to tenants, the tenant union's information service was protected by free speech guarantees. Hopper v. Madison, 79 Wis. 2d 120, 256 N.W.2d 139.
The public's right to be aware of all facts surrounding an issue does not interfere with the right of newspaper to reject advertising. Wis. Assoc. of Nursing Homes v. Journal Co. 92 Wis. 2d 709, 285 N.W.2d 891 (Ct. App. 1979).
Procedures to determine whether journalist may properly invoke privilege to prevent disclosure of confidential sources set. Green Bay Newspaper v. Circuit Court, 113 Wis. 2d 411, 335 N.W.2d 367 (1983).
The right of free speech applies against state action, not private action. Jacobs v. Major, 139 Wis. 2d 492, 407 N.W.2d 832 (1987).
News gatherers have no constitutional right of access to disaster scenes beyond that accorded the general public. City of Oak Creek v. King, 148 Wis. 2d 532, 436 N.W.2d 285 (1989).
Commercial speech is protected by the 1st amendment. The government must show a restriction directly advances a substantial interest for it to be constitutional. City of Milwaukee v. Blondis, 157 Wis. 2d 730, 460 N.W.2d 815 (Ct. App. 1990).
A sentence based on an activity protected by the 1st amendment is constitutionally invalid, but when a sufficient link to criminal activity is shown, the activity is no longer protected. State v. J.E.B. 161 Wis. 2d 655, 469 N.W.2d 192 (Ct. App. 1991).
Although music is accorded a presumption of being protected speech, an ordinance prohibiting all unreasonable noise was not an unconstitutionally vague encroachment on free speech. City of Madison v. Bauman, 162 Wis. 2d 660, 470 N.W.2d 296 (1991).
An employee's free speech rights were not violated where the employer's need for confidentiality and discipline clearly outweighed the employe's interest in disclosing confidential information. Barnhill v. Bd. of Regents, 166 Wis. 2d 395, 479 N.W.2d 917 (1992).
Prison inmates 1st amendment rights are subject to limitation and regulation. Interception and withholding of inter-inmate correspondence was reasonable. Yoder v. Palmeri, 177 Wis. 2d 756, 502 N.W.2d 903 (Ct. App. 1993).
Whether a restriction on nude dancing is overbroad depends on whether the ordinance is targeted at curbing only harmful secondary effects of exotic clubs. Fond du Lac County v. Mentzel, 195 Wis. 2d 313, 536 N.W.2d 160 (Ct. App. 1995).
The state's power to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages under the 21st amendment includes the lesser power to ban nude dancing on premises where alcohol is served. Schultz v. City of Cumberland, 195 Wis. 2d 554, 536 N.W.2d 192 (Ct. App. 1995).
The restriction of prison inmates free speech rights are discussed. Lomax v. Fiedler, 204 Wis. 2d 196, 554 N.W.2d 841 (Ct. App. 1996).
A zoning ordinance which did not set aside any area where an adult bookstore would be allowed was impermissible. Town of Wayne v. Bishop, 210 Wis. 2d 219, 565 N.W.2d 201 (Ct. App. 1997).
A public nudity ordinance will meet a challenge that it is facially overbroad if it is drafted in a manner that addresses the secondary effects of adult entertainment without suffocating protected expression in a real and substantial manner. Lounge Management v. Town of Trenton, 219 Wis. 2d 13, 580 N.W.2d 156 (1998).
Obscenity is, and has been, an abuse of the right to speak freely on all subjects under the state constitution. The breadth of protection offered by the Wisconsin constitution in the context of obscenity is no greater than that afforded by the 1st amendment. County of Kenosha v. C. & S. Management, Inc. 223 Wis. 2d 373, 588 N.W.2d 236 (1999).
It may well be appropriate to consider context in determining whether a communication "expressly advocates" the election, defeat, recall or retention of a clearly identified candidate or a particular vote at a referendum, within the meaning of s. 11.01 (16) (a) 1. Elections Board v. Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, 227 Wis. 2d 650, 597 N.W.2d 721 (1999).
When an ordinance regulates 1st amendment activities, the government normally has the burden of defending the regulation beyond a reasonable doubt, but where prior restraints are concerned and the government action at issue is the review of an applicant's qualifications for a business license, the city does not bear the burden of going to court to effect the denial of a license, nor does it bear the burden of proof once in court. City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 231 Wis. 2d 93, 604 N.W.2d 870 (Ct. App. 1999).
Unfiled pretrial materials in a civil action between private parties are not public records and neither the public nor the press has either a common law or constitutional right of access to those materials. State ex rel. Mitsubishi v. Milwaukee County, 2000 WI 16, 233 Wis. 2d 1, 605 N.W.2d 868.
Free speech and the state's campaign finance law are discussed in light of Buckley v. Valeo. 65 Atty. Gen. 145.
Car card space on city transit system is not free speech forum. Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights, 418 U.S. 298.
Flag misuse statute was unconstitutional as applied to a flag hung upside down with a peace symbol affixed where the context imbued the display with protected elements of communication. Spence v. State of Washington, 418 U.S. 405.
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.
