Government Speech Flashcards
West Virginia Bd. v. Barnette)
The Board adopted a resolution to make saluting the flag a regular school activity. Refusal to salute was considered subordination and the child that refused to salute would be suspended from school and treated as a delinquent. Parents would also be jailed and fined. A group of Jehovah’s Witnesses requested an injunction because they believed saluting the flag was an image.
Issue: Whether the Board’s resolution violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment.
A state may not compel individuals to engage in involuntary expression.
The flag salute is a form of utterance, and symbolism is a primitive but effective way to communicate ideas.
The compulsory flag salute and pledge requires affirmation of a belief and an attitude of mind
Cannot force citizens to act against their beliefs
Rust v. Sullivan
Congress enacted Title X that provides federal funding for family planning services. However, none of the federal funds can be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.
Issue: Whether the regulations limiting the ability for federal fund recipients to engage in abortions violates the First Amend.
The government has not discriminated on viewpoint here but has merely chosen to fund one while excluding the other. This is not a case where the government is suppressing dangerous ideas but is a case where the government is prohibiting an employee or project grantee from engaging in activities outside the scope.
Legal Services Corp. v. Valezquez)
Congress enacted the Legal Services Corp. Act in 1974. The mission was to distribute funds appropriated by Congress to local grantee organizations to provide financial support for legal assistance in non-criminal matters to poor clients. The Act prohibits funding if the representation involves an effort to amend or challenge the existing welfare law.
Whether the prohibition imposed by Congress violates the First Amend.
Government can decide to fund certain speech and not others (abortion)
BUT this does not always apply to instances in which the government provides funding to private speakers
* Ex. Federally funded lawyers
The attorneys are not the government speakers when representing a person in a welfare challenge. they are speaking on behalf of their private clients
The Government cannot limit/condition funding by restricting speech made by private actors.
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society 2013
funding to AID organizations, but only if they had explicit policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking
Conditions regulating speech outside of a funding program
Compelled recipients to adopt the govt’s position on sex trafficking whether it was for programs funded by govt. or by other sources
this is unconstitutional compelling speech
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society 2020
funding to FOREIGN
AID organizations, but with condition that they had explicit policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking
do foreign organizations have 1st amend rights?
- First amendment applies to U.S entities whether inside or outside U.S
- For foreign entities, it applies when theyre operating inside the U.S but not outside the U.S (when they are operating inside they establish a cooperation in the U.S)
Walker v. Texas Confederates)
Texas allows for specialty license plates. To receive one, the person must propose a design that must be approved by the BMV. The Texas Confederates proposed a plate design with a confederate flag that was not approved.
Whether the rejection of the plate violated the First Amend.
The specialty license plates are government speech. The factors the court considers determining whether the plates are government speech:
(1) the government has final authority over the plates;
(2) Texas takes ownership of the plates;
(3) they are traditional government speech and used as a form of government identification.
Texas presents these designs on government-mandated, government-controlled, and government-issued IDs that have traditionally been used as a medium for government speech
(Garcetti v. Ceballos)
Ceballos was a deputy DA that spoke out against a motion and was punished by not receiving a promotion, etc.
Issue: Whether a government employee is protected under the First Amend. from discipline based on speech made pursuant to his official duties.
Ceballos statements were made pursuant to his official duties.
Ceballos’ memo is illustrative. It demanded the attention of his supervisors and led to a heated meeting with employees from the sheriff’s department.
no first amendment protections
Cohen v. Cowles Media)
Cohen offered to provide docs relating to his opposing candidate in exchange for confidentiality. The press agreed and Cohen turned over the docs. However, the press still published his name with the confidential information.
Whether the First Amend. prevents recovery of damages for a newspaper’s breach of promise of confidentiality.
The 1st Amendment freedom of press does not prevent a civil suit for breach of confidentiality between an informant and news media outlet.
the truthful information sought to be published must have been lawfully acquired.
Janus v. American Fed. Of State, Corp. and Municipal Employees)
Illinois law required public employees who were not apart of a union to pay union dues.
Issue: Whether the compelled bargaining provisions violate the First Amend.
Union payments that are collected, w/out any opportunity of the employee to opt out, are considered compelled government speech
you can’t be forced to pay dues and enter a union that you don’t share the same views with
