Doing a bit of online research, I've run into that unpublished case which tells the backstory of Margaret McIntyre. Read the whole thing, as they say.
McIntyre, 115 S. Ct. at 1514. The April 27th meeting marked the beginning of a long
and unpleasant battle over the tax levy in Westerville. See Hansen v. Westerville City
Sch. Dist., Nos. 93-3231, 93-3303, 1994 WL 622153 (6th Cir. Nov. 7, 1994), cert. denied
115 S. Ct. 2611 (1995). http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/43/43.F3d.1472.93-3303.93-3231.html, unpublished opinion tells the story of mcintyre.
McIntyre is often discussed as if she was a "lone pampleteer", and some of the statutes have been revised to provide lone pampleteer exceptions. But she was part of a larger gang, some of whom sued after being attacked by cops at a public hearing on the tax increase.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Special prosecutor appointed in Shaffer case
by Billy Wolfe STAFF WRITER
Friday, June 26, 2009 6:32 AM CDT
CLARKSBURG — Harrison Chief Circuit Judge Thomas A. Bedell appointed a special prosecutor Wednesday to handle the criminal case against City Councilman Martin Shaffer.
Shaffer was arrested June 1 for his role in the production of an anonymous document that criticized members of city council.
Bedell said Wednesday that Marion County Prosecutor Pat Wilson, or one of Wilson’s designees, will handle the case.
Wilson was out of town Wednesday and could not be reached for comment.
Harrison County Prosecutor Joe Shaffer has stepped down from the case because Martin Shaffer is his uncle.
Clarksburg Police arrested Councilman Shaffer the day before the recent municipal election and charged him with two misdemeanors for violating state election laws.
Two other arrest warrants have been issued in connection with the case. Both suspects are in Arizona and have not yet been served with the warrants, according to Clarksburg Police Lt. Robert Matheny.
As previously reported, the state law that authorities cited in Shaffer’s arrest has been under a federal injunction since 1996. The injunction permanently bans enforcement of the law.
The law states that “no person may publish, issue or circulate” anonymous material that either supports or aids the defeat of a candidate for public office. The law may be enforced only if the material includes “express advocacy.” Examples of express advocacy include phrases like “vote for” and “support.”
Although the so-called newsletter criticized councilmen Sam “Zeke” Lopez and Jim Hunt, it made no official endorsements.
At least two national nonprofit law firms have come out strongly against the arrest, saying that police violated Councilman Shaffer’s right to freedom of speech.
Shaffer said he has been in contact with both the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics. The agencies have been advising Shaffer on his legal rights, he said.
The story also has been reported on by national political blogs like the Daily Kos.
The West Virginia Secretary of State’s office, which advised police on the legality of the arrest, has refused to comment on the ongoing investigation.
City Manager Martin Howe, who publicly announced the city was launching an investigation into the newsletter’s origins during an April 26 press conference, deferred all questions to the police department. Howe has called the document “slanderous,” and “illegal.”
Shaffer has also chosen a lawyer for his defense.
Morgantown attorney Traci Cook, who is Harrison County’s former chief assistant prosecutor, confirmed Wednesday she will represent the councilman in court.
Cook did not wish to comment on the case just yet.
“We are still in the early stages,” she said.
In another turn of events, City Attorney Greg Morgan said a citizen has issued to him a notice to “cease and desist” with Councilman Shaffer’s prosecution.
According to the notice, “Shaffer’s conduct, and that of the others, was legal, and he was subjected to a false arrest.”
Morgan said the individual is “entitled to have their opinion and to have it heard” but that he is not the appropriate person to receive the notice. He said the notice should have instead been issued to the prosecutor handling the case.
Morgan said Wednesday he will forward the cease and desist notice to Wilson’s office.
Staff writer Billy Wolfe can be reached at (304) 626-1404 or by e-mail at bwolfe@exponent-telegram.com
by Billy Wolfe STAFF WRITER
Friday, June 26, 2009 6:32 AM CDT
CLARKSBURG — Harrison Chief Circuit Judge Thomas A. Bedell appointed a special prosecutor Wednesday to handle the criminal case against City Councilman Martin Shaffer.
Shaffer was arrested June 1 for his role in the production of an anonymous document that criticized members of city council.
Bedell said Wednesday that Marion County Prosecutor Pat Wilson, or one of Wilson’s designees, will handle the case.
Wilson was out of town Wednesday and could not be reached for comment.
Harrison County Prosecutor Joe Shaffer has stepped down from the case because Martin Shaffer is his uncle.
Clarksburg Police arrested Councilman Shaffer the day before the recent municipal election and charged him with two misdemeanors for violating state election laws.
Two other arrest warrants have been issued in connection with the case. Both suspects are in Arizona and have not yet been served with the warrants, according to Clarksburg Police Lt. Robert Matheny.
As previously reported, the state law that authorities cited in Shaffer’s arrest has been under a federal injunction since 1996. The injunction permanently bans enforcement of the law.
The law states that “no person may publish, issue or circulate” anonymous material that either supports or aids the defeat of a candidate for public office. The law may be enforced only if the material includes “express advocacy.” Examples of express advocacy include phrases like “vote for” and “support.”
Although the so-called newsletter criticized councilmen Sam “Zeke” Lopez and Jim Hunt, it made no official endorsements.
At least two national nonprofit law firms have come out strongly against the arrest, saying that police violated Councilman Shaffer’s right to freedom of speech.
Shaffer said he has been in contact with both the Institute for Justice and the Center for Competitive Politics. The agencies have been advising Shaffer on his legal rights, he said.
The story also has been reported on by national political blogs like the Daily Kos.
The West Virginia Secretary of State’s office, which advised police on the legality of the arrest, has refused to comment on the ongoing investigation.
City Manager Martin Howe, who publicly announced the city was launching an investigation into the newsletter’s origins during an April 26 press conference, deferred all questions to the police department. Howe has called the document “slanderous,” and “illegal.”
Shaffer has also chosen a lawyer for his defense.
Morgantown attorney Traci Cook, who is Harrison County’s former chief assistant prosecutor, confirmed Wednesday she will represent the councilman in court.
Cook did not wish to comment on the case just yet.
“We are still in the early stages,” she said.
In another turn of events, City Attorney Greg Morgan said a citizen has issued to him a notice to “cease and desist” with Councilman Shaffer’s prosecution.
According to the notice, “Shaffer’s conduct, and that of the others, was legal, and he was subjected to a false arrest.”
Morgan said the individual is “entitled to have their opinion and to have it heard” but that he is not the appropriate person to receive the notice. He said the notice should have instead been issued to the prosecutor handling the case.
Morgan said Wednesday he will forward the cease and desist notice to Wilson’s office.
Staff writer Billy Wolfe can be reached at (304) 626-1404 or by e-mail at bwolfe@exponent-telegram.com
Friday, June 26, 2009
wv CONSTITUTION NOTES
3-3. Rights reserved to people.
Government is instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community. Of all its various forms that is the best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
All men are, by nature, equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely: The enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
3-7. Freedom of speech and press guaranteed.
No law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, shall be passed; but the Legislature may, by suitable penalties, restrain the publication or sale of obscene books, papers, or pictures, and provide for the punishment of libel, and defamation of character, and for the recovery, in civil actions, by the aggrieved party, of suitable damages for such libel, or defamation.
3-16. Right of public assembly held inviolate.
The right of the people to assemble in a peaceable manner, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives, or to apply for redress of grievances, shall be held inviolate.
3-3. Rights reserved to people.
Government is instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community. Of all its various forms that is the best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
All men are, by nature, equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely: The enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
3-7. Freedom of speech and press guaranteed.
No law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, shall be passed; but the Legislature may, by suitable penalties, restrain the publication or sale of obscene books, papers, or pictures, and provide for the punishment of libel, and defamation of character, and for the recovery, in civil actions, by the aggrieved party, of suitable damages for such libel, or defamation.
3-16. Right of public assembly held inviolate.
The right of the people to assemble in a peaceable manner, to consult for the common good, to instruct their representatives, or to apply for redress of grievances, shall be held inviolate.
Found a myspace page dedicated to Manual Talley www.myspace.com/manueltalley
1918-- Born in Denver, Colorado;....1922-brother Munroe dies of diphtheria;.... 1944 or 1945-- Jailed for refusal to register for draft. Went on a highly publicized hunger strike to protest segregation in the prison dining hall. Within several months the dining hall was integrated. .......... 1947-- With F.O.R. and Julius [or Cornelius] Steelink, Talley organized the first National Draft Card burning. .......... 1948-- Talley is appointed the first Field Representative for the Los Angeles Chapter of the Congress on Racial Equality (C.O.R.E), leading sit ins, demonstrations and boycotts against businesses who refuse to serve or employ African-Americans. 1949-- Oklahoma Librarian Ruth Brown, which became a widely publicized case of civil rights, reports to Houser that " a visit by CORE Field Worker Manuel Talley gave the group a much needed boost........... 1950-- Talley leaves CORE.....Eventuall he organnizes National Consumers Mobilization for Fair Employment ..........1956-- Talley receives a letter from Martin Luther King, Jr., agreeing with Talley that a boycott of the Los Angeles Transit System would not be advisable, but thanking him for his support. [This letter is published in "The Papers of Martin Luther King, Volume 3, 1997]. .......... 1960-- Talley goes to the United States Supreme Court. The case is called "Talley v. California, 362 US 60." Manuel Talley was distributing leaflets in front of a store urging consumers to boycott of products produced by companies that did not have fair employment practices, that is did not employ African Americans. The police were called and informed him that there was a law that the name and address of the producer of such handbills must be printed on them. Talley took the case to court, stating that this law was in violation of the first Amendment of the United States Constitution, Freedom of Speech. In March of 1960, the Supreme Court upheld Talley's argument. This case is highly important and often referred to in questions of freedom of speech, including freedom of speech on the internet.... 1963 May 8, Talley begins a fast to gain 100,000 signatures on a petition demanding voting rights to blacks in the south. Ends the fast on July 2nd, when goal of 100,000 signatures has been achieved. Later that same year, the US Commission on Civil Rights puts out it's 1963 report calling for protection of southern black voters, which leads to the 1965 Voting Rights Act......... 1986--Died, Los Angeles.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/ajtalley/gGB4F2/commentary
I am a civil rights baby, in the truest sense of the term.
My African American father, Manuel D. Talley, committed his life to the struggle. In his 20's, he refused to be inducted into a segregated armed forces. As a result, he was incarcerated in a segregated prison. He then embarked on a highly publicized hunger strike until the warden agreed to desegregate the dining hall.
In 1948, he met my mother, a petite blonde co-ed at UC Berkely. The laws against intermarriage were still in place in California. They were repealed in 1949, and my parents wed in 1950. Soon they had three children, and Dad was still on the forefront of the battle.
Dad led many civil rights activities in the 1950's and '60's. From sit-ins to boycotts to "testing" landlords and employers, to leafletting, Dad continued his dedication to the cause. He took cases to court, and always won. He even took a free speech case to the US Supreme Court (Talley v. California) which is still being used as precedent in current cases.
American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California Records
Processed by Manuscripts Division staff; machine-readable finding aid created by Caroline Cubé
UCLA Library, Department of Special Collections
Manuscripts Division
Room A1713, Charles E. Young Research Library
Box 951575
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1575
Email: spec-coll@library.ucla.edu
URL: http://www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/special/scweb/
© 2003
Finding Aid for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California Records, ca. 1935-
[ Box 97 ]
[ Folder 18 ]
Handbill Case - Manuel D. Talley
Here's a list of cases about anonymous political speech.
The next step will be to go through these cases and find some good quotes to put into a brief in support of Shaffer.
Doe v.2theMart,140 F.Supp.2d 1088, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/stjohns/2themart.html
ACLU v. Ashcroft, _ U.S. _ (2004), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU_v._Ashcroft_(2004) see Doe v Gonzales, 546 U.S. 1301 (2005),
ACLU of Georgia v. Miller, (977 F.Supp. 1228 (N.D.Ga 1997), http://www2.bc.edu/~herbeck/cyberlaw.acluvmiller.html
ACLU v. Reno, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union
ALA v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp 160 (1997) http://www.loundy.com/CASES/ALA_v_Pataki.html
American Constitutional Law Foundation [ACLF], Buckley v., 525 U.S.182
(1999), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-930.ZO.html
Anonymous v. Delaware, 2000 Del. Ch. Lexis 84 (2000),
Arkansas Right to Life v. Butler, 29 F.Supp.2d 540, sustained on other
grounds146 F.3d 558 (8th Cir 1998),
THE BROWARD COALITION v BROWNING(ND Fla. 2008)
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/ECO.order.pdf
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999) see aclf.
Center for Individual Liberty v Ireland 1:08-cv-00190 (W.D.WV 2009)
Cyberspace v. Engler, 55 F.Supp.2d 737 (E.D. Mich 1999)http://www.cyberspace.org/cyberspace/lawsuit/
http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/june1decisioncyber.pdf
Dennis v. Massachusetts, 329 N.E.2d 706 (Mass. 1975), http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/368/368mass92.html
Doe v. Mortham, 708 So.2d 929 (Fla.1998).
Ex Parte Harrison, 110 S.W. 709 (Mo 1908)
Free Speech Coalition, Ashcroft v., 535 U.S. 234 (2002)http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html
Griset v. Fair Political Practices Commission, 69 Cal. App. 4th 818, 82 Cal. Rptr.2d 25(1999), reversed on other grounds,
Printing Industries of the Gulf Coast v. Hill, 382 F.Supp. 8011 (S.D.Tx 1974),42 L.Ed.26 33 dismissed as moot. http://openjurist.org/422/us/937/hill-v-printing-industries-of-gulf-coast
Idaho v. Barney, 448 P.2d 195 (1968),
Illinois v. White, 506 NE2d 1284 (Ill. 1987)http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CIL%5CIL2%5Carchp%5C1987%5C19870220_0000193.IL.htm/qx
Louisiana. v. Moses, 655 So. 2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1995),
State of Lousiana v. Fulton, 3.37 So.2d 866 (La. 1976)
Michael James Berger, aka Magic Mike v. City of Seattle (9th Cir. 2009)
http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=05-35752&s=WA&d=40488
Majors v. Abell, 317 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2003), 792 NE2d 18 (Ind.
2003), 361 F.2d 349 (2004), http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/153312903321578269?cookieSet=1&journalCode=elj http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=02-2204&submit=showdkt&yr=02&num=2204A.P
McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html
overruled 67 Ohio St. 3d 391; 618 N. E. 2d 152
Melvin v Doe, 2001 Pa. Super. 330
N.Dakota v. N.D. Ed. Assoc., 262 N.W.2d 731 http://www.ndcourts.com/court/opinions/612.htm
New York v. Duryea, 351 NYS2d 978 (1974)
In re Opinion of the Justices, 324 A.2d 211 (Del. 1974)
http://de.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CDE%5CDE2%5C1974%5C19740731_0002.DE.htm/qx
Opinion of the Justices, 306 A.2d 18 (Maine 1973)
Washington ex rel Public Disclosure v. 119 Vote No!, 957 P.2d 691 (1998)
http://lw.bna.com/lw/19980630/64332.htm
Ogden v. Marendt, (S.D. Ind 2004),
Peterslie v. N.Carolina, (N.Car. 1993)http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/nc-supreme-court/jul3093/persilie
Griset v. Cal. Fair Practices, 884 P.2d 116 (1994),(1999),(2001)
Riley v. Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781 (1998)http://laws.findlaw.com/us/487/781.html
ShrinkMo v. Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1995), aff'd, 71 F.3d
1422 (8th Cir. 1995),http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/952857P.pdf
Schuster v. Imperial County Mun. Ct., 167 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Cal. Ct. App.
1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042 45.
Schuster v. Imperial County (1980)http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CCA%5CCA2%5C1980%5C19800828_0040409.CA.htm/qx
Smith v California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959),http://supreme.justia.com/us/361/147/
Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F.Supp.1047 (S.D.Ind.1997),
Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960),http://epic.org/free_speech/talley_v_california.html
Texas v. Doe, (Tx. Cr.App. 5/14/2003)
Vermont Right to Life v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, 392 (2d Cir. 2000), http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/221/376/526348/
Watchtower v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002)http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1737.ZS.html
West Virginians for Life v Ireland (W.D.WV 2009)
West Virginians for Life, Inc. v. Smith, 919 F. Supp. 954 (S.D. W. Va. 1996),
Wilson v Stocker, 819 F.2d 943, 950 (10th Cir. 1987), http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/819/819.F2d.943.85-2736.85-2641.85-2323.html
Wooley v Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) http://supreme.justia.com/us/430/705/case.html
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-969#FNopinion1.7
Yes to Life PAC v. Webster, http://www.med.uscourts.gov/opinions/Hornby/2000/DBH_02072000_2-99cv318_YES_PAC_V_WEBSTER.pdf
Zwickler v. Koota, 290 F. Supp. 244 (E. D. N. Y. 1968), vacated on other grounds (mootness)sub nom. Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103 (1969)http://law.jrank.org/pages/12637/Zwickler-v-Koota.html http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=ny&navby=case&court=us&vol=389&invol=241
People v. Bongiorni, 205 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 856 (Sup. Ct. 1962)
People v Drake
ACLU v Heller 378 F3d 979 (2004)http://openjurist.org/378/f3d/979/american-civil-liberties-union-of-nevada-v-heller
Tornillo v Miami Herald http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Herald_Publishing_Co._v._Tornillo
"Where at all possible, government must curtail speech only to the degree necessary to meet the particular problem at hand, and must avoid infringing on speech that does not pose the danger that has prompted regulation." Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U.S. 238, 265, 107 S.Ct. 616, 93 L.Ed.2d 539 (1986)
fr10] At least ten state and lower federal courts have applied exacting scrutiny to protect various forms of anonymous political speech. See, e. g., State v. Doe, 61 S. W. 3d 99 (Tex. Ct. App. 2001); Washington Initiatives Now v. Ripple, 213 F. 3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2000); Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. City of Erie, 99 F. Supp. 2d 583 (W. D. Pa. 2000); State v. Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 978 P. 2d 597 (Alaska 1999); Yes for Life PAC v. Webster, 74 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D. Me. 1999) and Volle v. Webster, 69 F. Supp. 2d 171 (D. Me. 1999); American KKK v. City of Goshen, 50 F. Supp. 2d 835 (N. D. Ind. 1999); Arkansas Right to Life State PAC v. Butler, 29 F. Supp. 2d 540 (W. D. Ark. 1998); Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047 (S. D. Ind. 1997); West Virginians for Life v. Smith, 960 F. Supp. 1036 (S. D. W. Va. 1996); and Virginia Society for Human Life v. Caldwell, 906 F. Supp. 1071 (W. D. Va. 1995).
State of North Dakota v Reisler http://www.ndcourts.com/court/opinions/412.htm (Offtopic)
mic ag op 1996 http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/1990s/op06895.htm
Page 1 http://www.doj.state.or.us/agoffice/agopinions/op8266.pdf
March 10, 1999
No. 8266
This opinion is issued in response to questions presented by Colleen Sealock, Director of the Elections Division in the
Office of Secretary of State Phil Keisling.
FIRST QUESTION PRESENTED
Does ORS 260.522,
(1)
which prohibits most anonymous signs, publications and broadcasts used in political campaigns,
violate the free speech provisions of the Oregon Constitution or the United States Constitution?
ANSWER GIVEN
The statute as currently written is unconstitutional. The liberty to produce and distribute anonymous campaign material is
protected by free speech guarantees. Under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution,
(2)
the Legislative Assembly
may not restrain "the free expression of opinion" or restrict a person's right to "speak, write, or print freely on any subject"
unless the limitation was well-established at the time that free speech guarantees entered the federal or state constitutions
and was not a limitation that those guarantees were designed to eliminate, or unless the limitation is directed not at speech
per se but at the effects of the speech. No historical exception covering anonymous political speech exists, nor does ORS
260.522 focus on effects as opposed to speech per se. Therefore, the statute violates Article I, section 8
N Dakota AGO http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:JlazyuKJnXkJ:www.ag.nd.gov/Opinions/2001/Advice/022601-Boucher.pdf+N.Dakota+v.+N.D.+Ed.+Assoc+%22%27262+N.W.2d+731%22&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
496 F2d 204 United States v. P Insco (5th Cir 1974) http://openjurist.org/496/f2d/204
http://www.vjolt.net/vol3/issue/vol3_art1.html Anonymous Internet Communication and the First Amendment: A Crack in the Dam of National Sovereignty by Michael H. Spencer
1918-- Born in Denver, Colorado;....1922-brother Munroe dies of diphtheria;.... 1944 or 1945-- Jailed for refusal to register for draft. Went on a highly publicized hun
Manuel D. Talley Memorial Page's Friend Space (Top 6)http://www.myspace.com/manueltalley
United States v. Donald H. Segretti, infra, without opinion
Canon v. Justice Court for the Lake Valley Judicial District of El Dorado County, 39 Cal.Rptr. 228, 231;
Insco:
Where freedom is at stake, ambiguities and doubts as to statutory application, manifestly existing here, must be resolved in favor of the accused. See, e.g., United States v. Enmons, 1973, 410 U.S. 396, 411, 93 S.Ct. 1007, 35 L.Ed.2d 379; Rewis v. United States, 1971, 401 U.S. 808, 812, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 28 L.Ed.2d 493; United States v. Etheridge, 6 Cir. 1970, 424 F.2d 951, cert. denied sub nom., Cole v. United States, 1971, 400 U.S. 993, 91 S.Ct. 463, 27 L.Ed.2d 442; United States v. Illinois Central Ry., W.D.Tenn. 1967, 269 F.Supp. 236, 240.
Reversed.
[cite wisc rtl v fec] tie goes to speaker
Huntley v. Public Util. Commn. of Cal. 69 Cal. 2d 67 (1968) (recorded telephone messages); Bogalusa v. May, 252 La. 629 (1968) (circulars and pamphlets); Opinion of the Justice, 306 Atl. 2d 18 (Maine, 1973) (authors of newspaper editorials); Opinion of the Justices, 324 Atl. 2d 211 (Del. 1974) (same); People v. Mishkin, 17 App. Div. 2d (N. Y.) 243 (1962) affd. 15 N. Y. 2d 671 (1964), affd. on other grounds sub nom. Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502 (1966) (disclosure of publisher or printer); Matter of Figari v. New York Tel. Co. 32 App. Div. 2d (N. Y.) 434 (1969) (recorded telephone messages). Cf. Lantana v. Pelczynski, 290 So. 2d 566 (Fla. App. 1974)
http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CFL%5CFL2%5C1974%5C19740228_0040593.FL.htm/qx
See City of Bogalusa v. May, 212 So.2d 408 (1968) (Louisiana Supreme Court struck down a municipal ordinance prohibiting the distribution of circulars and pamphlets which did not identify the distributor); State v. Fulton, 337 So.2d 866 (1976) (Louisiana Supreme Court struck down state statute prohibiting the publication and distribution of any material concerning a candidate, where the material did not identify the person responsible for its publication); State v. Burgess, 543 So.2d 1332 (1989) (Louisiana Supreme Court struck down state statute which prohibited the publication, distribution, or transmission of ''any oral, visual, or written material containing any statement which makes scurrilous, false, or irresponsible adverse comment about a candidate . . . or about a proposition to be submitted to the voters, unless the publication contains the name(s) of the person(s) responsible for its publication.'')
Morefield v. Moore (Ky. 1976), 540 S.W.2d 873; State v. Acey (Tenn. 1982), 633 S.W.2d 306.
The abolition of anonymity, 40 Tenn.L.Rev. 301. http://www.hwylaw.com/CM/Articles/DLR.AbolitionTLR.pdf
The next step will be to go through these cases and find some good quotes to put into a brief in support of Shaffer.
Doe v.2theMart,140 F.Supp.2d 1088, http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/stjohns/2themart.html
ACLU v. Ashcroft, _ U.S. _ (2004), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU_v._Ashcroft_(2004) see Doe v Gonzales, 546 U.S. 1301 (2005),
ACLU of Georgia v. Miller, (977 F.Supp. 1228 (N.D.Ga 1997), http://www2.bc.edu/~herbeck/cyberlaw.acluvmiller.html
ACLU v. Reno, 117 S.Ct. 2329 (1997) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union
ALA v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp 160 (1997) http://www.loundy.com/CASES/ALA_v_Pataki.html
American Constitutional Law Foundation [ACLF], Buckley v., 525 U.S.182
(1999), http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-930.ZO.html
Anonymous v. Delaware, 2000 Del. Ch. Lexis 84 (2000),
Arkansas Right to Life v. Butler, 29 F.Supp.2d 540, sustained on other
grounds146 F.3d 558 (8th Cir 1998),
THE BROWARD COALITION v BROWNING(ND Fla. 2008)
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/broward/blog/ECO.order.pdf
Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999) see aclf.
Center for Individual Liberty v Ireland 1:08-cv-00190 (W.D.WV 2009)
Cyberspace v. Engler, 55 F.Supp.2d 737 (E.D. Mich 1999)http://www.cyberspace.org/cyberspace/lawsuit/
http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/june1decisioncyber.pdf
Dennis v. Massachusetts, 329 N.E.2d 706 (Mass. 1975), http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/368/368mass92.html
Doe v. Mortham, 708 So.2d 929 (Fla.1998).
Ex Parte Harrison, 110 S.W. 709 (Mo 1908)
Free Speech Coalition, Ashcroft v., 535 U.S. 234 (2002)http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html
Griset v. Fair Political Practices Commission, 69 Cal. App. 4th 818, 82 Cal. Rptr.2d 25(1999), reversed on other grounds,
Printing Industries of the Gulf Coast v. Hill, 382 F.Supp. 8011 (S.D.Tx 1974),42 L.Ed.26 33 dismissed as moot. http://openjurist.org/422/us/937/hill-v-printing-industries-of-gulf-coast
Idaho v. Barney, 448 P.2d 195 (1968),
Illinois v. White, 506 NE2d 1284 (Ill. 1987)http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CIL%5CIL2%5Carchp%5C1987%5C19870220_0000193.IL.htm/qx
Louisiana. v. Moses, 655 So. 2d 779 (La. Ct. App. 1995),
State of Lousiana v. Fulton, 3.37 So.2d 866 (La. 1976)
Michael James Berger, aka Magic Mike v. City of Seattle (9th Cir. 2009)
http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=05-35752&s=WA&d=40488
Majors v. Abell, 317 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2003), 792 NE2d 18 (Ind.
2003), 361 F.2d 349 (2004), http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/153312903321578269?cookieSet=1&journalCode=elj http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?caseno=02-2204&submit=showdkt&yr=02&num=2204A.P
McIntyre v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-986.ZO.html
overruled 67 Ohio St. 3d 391; 618 N. E. 2d 152
Melvin v Doe, 2001 Pa. Super. 330
N.Dakota v. N.D. Ed. Assoc., 262 N.W.2d 731 http://www.ndcourts.com/court/opinions/612.htm
New York v. Duryea, 351 NYS2d 978 (1974)
In re Opinion of the Justices, 324 A.2d 211 (Del. 1974)
http://de.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CDE%5CDE2%5C1974%5C19740731_0002.DE.htm/qx
Opinion of the Justices, 306 A.2d 18 (Maine 1973)
Washington ex rel Public Disclosure v. 119 Vote No!, 957 P.2d 691 (1998)
http://lw.bna.com/lw/19980630/64332.htm
Ogden v. Marendt, (S.D. Ind 2004),
Peterslie v. N.Carolina, (N.Car. 1993)http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/nc-supreme-court/jul3093/persilie
Griset v. Cal. Fair Practices, 884 P.2d 116 (1994),(1999),(2001)
Riley v. Federation of the Blind, 487 U.S. 781 (1998)http://laws.findlaw.com/us/487/781.html
ShrinkMo v. Maupin, 892 F. Supp. 1246 (E.D. Mo. 1995), aff'd, 71 F.3d
1422 (8th Cir. 1995),http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/95/12/952857P.pdf
Schuster v. Imperial County Mun. Ct., 167 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Cal. Ct. App.
1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1042 45.
Schuster v. Imperial County (1980)http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CCA%5CCA2%5C1980%5C19800828_0040409.CA.htm/qx
Smith v California, 361 U.S. 147 (1959),http://supreme.justia.com/us/361/147/
Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F.Supp.1047 (S.D.Ind.1997),
Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960),http://epic.org/free_speech/talley_v_california.html
Texas v. Doe, (Tx. Cr.App. 5/14/2003)
Vermont Right to Life v. Sorrell, 221 F.3d 376, 392 (2d Cir. 2000), http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/221/376/526348/
Watchtower v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002)http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1737.ZS.html
West Virginians for Life v Ireland (W.D.WV 2009)
West Virginians for Life, Inc. v. Smith, 919 F. Supp. 954 (S.D. W. Va. 1996),
Wilson v Stocker, 819 F.2d 943, 950 (10th Cir. 1987), http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/819/819.F2d.943.85-2736.85-2641.85-2323.html
Wooley v Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) http://supreme.justia.com/us/430/705/case.html
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=06-969#FNopinion1.7
Yes to Life PAC v. Webster, http://www.med.uscourts.gov/opinions/Hornby/2000/DBH_02072000_2-99cv318_YES_PAC_V_WEBSTER.pdf
Zwickler v. Koota, 290 F. Supp. 244 (E. D. N. Y. 1968), vacated on other grounds (mootness)sub nom. Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103 (1969)http://law.jrank.org/pages/12637/Zwickler-v-Koota.html http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?friend=ny&navby=case&court=us&vol=389&invol=241
People v. Bongiorni, 205 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 856 (Sup. Ct. 1962)
People v Drake
ACLU v Heller 378 F3d 979 (2004)http://openjurist.org/378/f3d/979/american-civil-liberties-union-of-nevada-v-heller
Tornillo v Miami Herald http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miami_Herald_Publishing_Co._v._Tornillo
"Where at all possible, government must curtail speech only to the degree necessary to meet the particular problem at hand, and must avoid infringing on speech that does not pose the danger that has prompted regulation." Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 U.S. 238, 265, 107 S.Ct. 616, 93 L.Ed.2d 539 (1986)
fr10] At least ten state and lower federal courts have applied exacting scrutiny to protect various forms of anonymous political speech. See, e. g., State v. Doe, 61 S. W. 3d 99 (Tex. Ct. App. 2001); Washington Initiatives Now v. Ripple, 213 F. 3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2000); Church of the American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. City of Erie, 99 F. Supp. 2d 583 (W. D. Pa. 2000); State v. Alaska Civil Liberties Union, 978 P. 2d 597 (Alaska 1999); Yes for Life PAC v. Webster, 74 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D. Me. 1999) and Volle v. Webster, 69 F. Supp. 2d 171 (D. Me. 1999); American KKK v. City of Goshen, 50 F. Supp. 2d 835 (N. D. Ind. 1999); Arkansas Right to Life State PAC v. Butler, 29 F. Supp. 2d 540 (W. D. Ark. 1998); Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047 (S. D. Ind. 1997); West Virginians for Life v. Smith, 960 F. Supp. 1036 (S. D. W. Va. 1996); and Virginia Society for Human Life v. Caldwell, 906 F. Supp. 1071 (W. D. Va. 1995).
State of North Dakota v Reisler http://www.ndcourts.com/court/opinions/412.htm (Offtopic)
mic ag op 1996 http://www.ag.state.mi.us/opinion/datafiles/1990s/op06895.htm
Page 1 http://www.doj.state.or.us/agoffice/agopinions/op8266.pdf
March 10, 1999
No. 8266
This opinion is issued in response to questions presented by Colleen Sealock, Director of the Elections Division in the
Office of Secretary of State Phil Keisling.
FIRST QUESTION PRESENTED
Does ORS 260.522,
(1)
which prohibits most anonymous signs, publications and broadcasts used in political campaigns,
violate the free speech provisions of the Oregon Constitution or the United States Constitution?
ANSWER GIVEN
The statute as currently written is unconstitutional. The liberty to produce and distribute anonymous campaign material is
protected by free speech guarantees. Under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution,
(2)
the Legislative Assembly
may not restrain "the free expression of opinion" or restrict a person's right to "speak, write, or print freely on any subject"
unless the limitation was well-established at the time that free speech guarantees entered the federal or state constitutions
and was not a limitation that those guarantees were designed to eliminate, or unless the limitation is directed not at speech
per se but at the effects of the speech. No historical exception covering anonymous political speech exists, nor does ORS
260.522 focus on effects as opposed to speech per se. Therefore, the statute violates Article I, section 8
N Dakota AGO http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:JlazyuKJnXkJ:www.ag.nd.gov/Opinions/2001/Advice/022601-Boucher.pdf+N.Dakota+v.+N.D.+Ed.+Assoc+%22%27262+N.W.2d+731%22&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
496 F2d 204 United States v. P Insco (5th Cir 1974) http://openjurist.org/496/f2d/204
http://www.vjolt.net/vol3/issue/vol3_art1.html Anonymous Internet Communication and the First Amendment: A Crack in the Dam of National Sovereignty by Michael H. Spencer
1918-- Born in Denver, Colorado;....1922-brother Munroe dies of diphtheria;.... 1944 or 1945-- Jailed for refusal to register for draft. Went on a highly publicized hun
Manuel D. Talley Memorial Page's Friend Space (Top 6)http://www.myspace.com/manueltalley
United States v. Donald H. Segretti, infra, without opinion
Canon v. Justice Court for the Lake Valley Judicial District of El Dorado County, 39 Cal.Rptr. 228, 231;
Insco:
Where freedom is at stake, ambiguities and doubts as to statutory application, manifestly existing here, must be resolved in favor of the accused. See, e.g., United States v. Enmons, 1973, 410 U.S. 396, 411, 93 S.Ct. 1007, 35 L.Ed.2d 379; Rewis v. United States, 1971, 401 U.S. 808, 812, 91 S.Ct. 1056, 28 L.Ed.2d 493; United States v. Etheridge, 6 Cir. 1970, 424 F.2d 951, cert. denied sub nom., Cole v. United States, 1971, 400 U.S. 993, 91 S.Ct. 463, 27 L.Ed.2d 442; United States v. Illinois Central Ry., W.D.Tenn. 1967, 269 F.Supp. 236, 240.
Reversed.
[cite wisc rtl v fec] tie goes to speaker
Huntley v. Public Util. Commn. of Cal. 69 Cal. 2d 67 (1968) (recorded telephone messages); Bogalusa v. May, 252 La. 629 (1968) (circulars and pamphlets); Opinion of the Justice, 306 Atl. 2d 18 (Maine, 1973) (authors of newspaper editorials); Opinion of the Justices, 324 Atl. 2d 211 (Del. 1974) (same); People v. Mishkin, 17 App. Div. 2d (N. Y.) 243 (1962) affd. 15 N. Y. 2d 671 (1964), affd. on other grounds sub nom. Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502 (1966) (disclosure of publisher or printer); Matter of Figari v. New York Tel. Co. 32 App. Div. 2d (N. Y.) 434 (1969) (recorded telephone messages). Cf. Lantana v. Pelczynski, 290 So. 2d 566 (Fla. App. 1974)
http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CFL%5CFL2%5C1974%5C19740228_0040593.FL.htm/qx
See City of Bogalusa v. May, 212 So.2d 408 (1968) (Louisiana Supreme Court struck down a municipal ordinance prohibiting the distribution of circulars and pamphlets which did not identify the distributor); State v. Fulton, 337 So.2d 866 (1976) (Louisiana Supreme Court struck down state statute prohibiting the publication and distribution of any material concerning a candidate, where the material did not identify the person responsible for its publication); State v. Burgess, 543 So.2d 1332 (1989) (Louisiana Supreme Court struck down state statute which prohibited the publication, distribution, or transmission of ''any oral, visual, or written material containing any statement which makes scurrilous, false, or irresponsible adverse comment about a candidate . . . or about a proposition to be submitted to the voters, unless the publication contains the name(s) of the person(s) responsible for its publication.'')
Morefield v. Moore (Ky. 1976), 540 S.W.2d 873; State v. Acey (Tenn. 1982), 633 S.W.2d 306.
The abolition of anonymity, 40 Tenn.L.Rev. 301. http://www.hwylaw.com/CM/Articles/DLR.AbolitionTLR.pdf
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The 9th circuit en banc handed down a decision in Magic Mike v Seattle that hold that street performerss can't be required to buy permits and wear identification badges, citing the right to anonymous speech found in McIntyre and Watchtower v Stratton.
And in Tennessee, here's a link about the Battle of Athens, when WWII-era GI's fought crooked local politicians over voter fraud.
I haven't seen any new news about the Clarksville situation. It now looks like the Citizens United case will come out Monday, the last case of the term. It might or might not say useful things abou election speech rights.
And in Tennessee, here's a link about the Battle of Athens, when WWII-era GI's fought crooked local politicians over voter fraud.
I haven't seen any new news about the Clarksville situation. It now looks like the Citizens United case will come out Monday, the last case of the term. It might or might not say useful things abou election speech rights.
Friday, June 19, 2009
hey blogger this is not a spam blog
[update, problem fixed, blog is working again]
I was interviewed by Billy Wolf of the clarskburg exponent-telegram, so maybe i'll be in the news tomorrow. I'm waiting to hear from slashdot or volokh about more coverage.
I was interviewed by Billy Wolf of the clarskburg exponent-telegram, so maybe i'll be in the news tomorrow. I'm waiting to hear from slashdot or volokh about more coverage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)