|
AG disapproves prior restramint
<br /> By Robert Ritchie Constitution of the Com- might deter perfectly peace- rnents would grant to the
<br /> monwealth. ful discussions of public moderator unguided discre-
<br /> he vat majortty of ge - In Talley v. California, matters of importance." tion in removing literature
<br /> eraf and porting bylaws 362 U.S. 60, 64 (1960)9 the In Mctntyre v. Ohio Flec- or other communication,
<br /> submitted to the MwdcWW petitioner was convicted of tions Comm., 514 U.S. 334, thus promoting arbitrary
<br /> Lazw Unk of the a ton y gen- violating a Los Angles city 341 (1995), Margaret Mcln- and potentially discrirnina-
<br /> er 's o, wfor revue are app- ordinance that prohibited tyre distributed leaflets at a tory denial of rights af-
<br /> proved, but a number are dis- the distribution of handbills public meeting held to dis- forded under the First
<br /> approved or uxunwit err- in any plane under any cir- cuss a proposed school tax Amendment of the United
<br /> trry corrun nL The B a n cumstances without the levy, which she opposed. Mates Constitution and r-
<br /> sum- name and address of the Relying on prior eases, the ticle 16 of the Massachu-
<br /> martes of bcal begftm of persons who printed, wrote, court held that cIntyr 's setts Declaration of Rights.
<br /> forts &atjaLkxt merely as a compiled, manufactured, or spec "occupies the core of The proposed bylaws did
<br /> waxy to lffustrate some of the distributed the handbills'. the protection afforded by not provide standards or cri-
<br /> ownn n pmblem areas. Holding the ordinance the First Amendment." teria to guidid the moderator
<br /> In two recent cases, the void on tts face, the court In Dennis, the court wrote, in reaching a deternrLination
<br /> attorney general disap- wrote, mere can be n "when core political speech of whether to remove from
<br /> proposed proved portions of propdoubt that such an identifi- is burdened a town must circulation any nonymous
<br /> bylaw amendments that cation requirement would demoxrstmte there is a corn- liter tum or communications
<br /> would have planed restric- tend to restrict freedom to pelting interest in order to distributed or made available
<br /> tions on the distribution of distribute information and justify a restraint on pro- to tovm meting.
<br /> written materials to town thereby freedom of expre - tted resion.... Restric- .The attorney general is
<br /> meeting members. sion. liberty of cimWating tions placed on the speech mindful that town meeting
<br /> In the Brat case, the article is as essential to that free- will be upheld only if they may establish rules s and
<br /> would have required that lit- dorn as liberty of publish- are narrowly tailored to serve procedures that govern the
<br /> crature or other co unica- ing; indeed, without the cir- a compelling state interest." coarse of town meeting.
<br /> tions distrIbuted or made culation, the publication The recently proposed Other than reasonable
<br /> available to town meeting wound be of little value." bylaw amendments were rules designed to preserve
<br /> hae'a clear Indication of In Commonwealth v. Den- not narrowly tailored to order during the proceed-
<br /> the responsibfltty for the nis, 368 Mass. 92, 96 serve a compelling govern- in , however, town meet-
<br /> content thereof.... Adequate (1975), die'court stated, ment interest. The bylaws ing cannot control how
<br /> information shall consist of "..,[Vere acre siccant were not limited to certain members will communicate
<br /> the full name(s) and stmt First Amendment problem material distributed at towm with each other,
<br /> address(es) of the voter(s)." with any statute which re- meeUn , but rather covered Robert RW#e is dbector of
<br /> Any communication that did quires the author of a publi- all materials Handed out at the MunkVW Law fn#t of dw
<br /> not met this standard could cation to reveal his identity." town meeting. They were attonwy gene 's o„ice.
<br /> be removed by the rnoder - In Dennis, the defendant not limited to false, mis-
<br /> ter at his discretion. was charged with violating a leading, offensive, or fraud- *
<br /> I .the second case, the state statute that made it il- ulet materials.
<br /> article provided in part that, legal to write, printf post, or Furthermore, the town's i
<br /> u(A)ll literature intended to distribute anonymous cir c- interest in publishing the
<br /> persuade voters for or lays and posters des ed to identity of the distributor is
<br /> against a proposal at town aid or defeat any candidate not compelling. The identity
<br /> meeting li i1�Li4p 4��L. S' ri r ,a#-#.r.••", `*�rr,
<br /> o nomination or election to of the speaker i no differ-
<br /> board, official, or individual a public office or any ques- ent than any other part of
<br /> initiating it. tions submitted to voter's. the document's content
<br /> The proposed amend- In'Talley, the court found which the author Is free to h �. +y �� ��. _ F9 ' . is
<br /> ents were disapproved be- that persecuted groups and include or exclude, accord- y _ ;
<br /> cause they would constitute sects from time to time ing to the McIntyre deci-
<br /> prior restraints" on free- throughout history have ion. Anonymity, the court
<br /> `, y*�.�l.`r■."��,�}
<br /> d.om of speech in violation been able to crlti i� op; wrote, acids little if arra 'k-�i `'�'�= �yy���}�i,�. . V .t
<br /> 1Df'1;' ;:
<br /> of the First Amendment as pre siv �
<br /> ccs and laws thing to the readers ability
<br /> pati
<br /> applied to the states via the either anon �t •: �.
<br /> yn]ous►Iy "I evaluate the document's
<br /> ,'' '"'t'• *
<br /> Fourteenth Amendment of at all, The requirement ofinessa e." Identification of v
<br /> the U.S. Constitution, a the identification of the dis- the author against the au- k ,,
<br /> well as Article 16 of the - tributor may bring with It thor s will is intrusive. w: ,:P ,'l
<br /> claration of Rights of the the "fear of reprisal that The proposed =end
<br /> TheBeacn April 2000 Page 19
<br />
|