ILNews

Law doesn't infringe on free speech

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled June 24 on the case of Doe v. Reed, No. 09-559, in which Terre Haute attorney James Bopp Jr. was the lead attorney on the case that pitted free speech versus public disclosure of ballot petition supporters.

At issue in the case was a 2009 Washington state law that granted gay and lesbian couples registered as domestic partners the same rights as married people. Some religious and social conservatives tried to repeal the law through Referendum 71, but 53 percent of the state’s voters opted to keep it. Petitions for that referendum raised the issue and pitted the two sides against each other about whether names of those petition-signers should be publicly disclosed.

Bopp represented the petition-signers, arguing that the names and addresses should be kept secret because signing a ballot petition is a private political act that warrants First Amendment protection. U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle barred the state from releasing the 138,000 names because that disclosure could endanger their rights to anonymous political speech, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision.

In a 67-page opinion, the nation’s top justices ruled 8-1 that the names and addresses of ballot petition signers can be made public, and that a Washington state statute on public record accessibility is constitutional. Justice Clarence Thomas issued the sole dissent, writing that he would have upheld the District judge’s ruling because he believes this type of speech is protected by the First Amendment and disclosure could have a detrimental impact on people’s interaction in the political process.

A majority found that disclosing the identities of ballot measure petition-signers does not generally violate the First Amendment, though it doesn’t “foreclose success” on any lower court arguments if the sponsors want to pursue a state law exemption. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John G. Roberts wrote that the broad challenge to the state law must be rejected. But the opinion allows the political action committee Protect Marriage Washington to ask the Western District of Washington judge for an exemption from publicly reporting the personal information of those who’d signed petitions in support of traditional marriage.
 

Rehearing on "In the name of free speech" IL March 31-April 13, 2010

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Residents can't vote under our current system? Okay, let's replace the system with another system where they can't vote. Yeah, that's the ticket!

  2. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  3. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  4. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  5. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

ADVERTISEMENT