Posted on by justlawfulblog

Civility and Its Discontents: Town Policy Cannot Squelch Assembly and Speech, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Concludes

Barron, et al. v. Kolenda, No. SJC-13284 (March 7, 2023).

Massachusetts highest court recently revisited the Commonwealth’s history without a view toward revisions but with great regard for the ideals of self-governance that gave rise to the state constitution’s guarantees of rights of assembly and speech.  To this day those goals persist, the court found, such that historically raucous and not infrequently personal public gatherings cannot be supplanted by codes of ‘civility’ which would preclude criticism of public officials. 

Massachusetts state law requires its municipalities and towns to conduct business openly, leaving it to the cities and towns to develop rules for public meetings.  The Town of Southborough enacted a policy demanding ‘civility’ in all public speech and forbidding rude criticisms of town officials.

Townsperson Louise Barron, upset with the state level determinations that the town frequently violated the open meeting policies, was open about her feelings before the select board, subsequent to which she was shouted at, called “disgusting,” and threatened with removal by a member of the board.  Exchanges of “Hitler” epithets were observed.

Barron challenged the board’s policy and action, asserting that it violated her rights of assembly and speech.  The Supreme Judicial Court has agreed, finding that both provisions of the state Declaration of Rights ensure public participation in governance free from fear of being silenced or reprisal.  

Those guarantees are steeped in traditions born in the days that the colonies of the new world sought to extricate themselves from the authority of monarchy and install among themselves rights of self governance, such as speech and assembly, which are not lightly to be disturbed absent a compelling state interest and a narrow means of supporting that interest.

Political speech such as that at town meetings is core political speech which cannot be censored — or censured — because it may precipitate discomfort or bad feelings.  As the town’s civility policy directly interfered with the exercise of assembly and petition rights, and as it was so broad and vague as to chill speech, the Supreme Judicial Court found it to be facially unconstitutional.  The policy was both content based — forbidding criticisms of officials — and viewpoint based — forbidding criticism while allowing praise, and, as such, wholly defective.

In addition to striking down the ‘civility’ policy, the Supreme Judicial Court stripped the town officials of qualified immunity, observing that the rights in question were well established and had been interfered with by threats and coercion.  

The case was remanded for further proceedings.  

Barron v. Kolenda, SJC-13284 (March 7, 2023)

 

 

Posted on by justlawfulblog

Pro-Life Cries of “Murder” Are Core Political Speech, Texas Supreme Court Holds

The Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity v. Dickson and Right to Life East Texas, No. 21-0978 and Dickson and Right to Life East Texas v. Afiya Center and East Texas Access Fund, No. 21-1039. 

Two Texas Courts of Appeals held divergent views of whether incendiary exchanges between pro-life and pro-choice groups could be actionable in defamation.  The Supreme Court of Texas has held that these advocates’ statements are not allegations of fact, but of opinion concerning matters of law and policy, making the rhetoric core political speech, protected by both the Texas and U.S. Constitutions.  As such, they are not actionable in defamation, as permitting such claims to go forward would chill protected speech.

The court noted that the term “murder” is freely employed in several social justice arenas, such as war, capital punishment, and animal rights.  

With this question resolved, post-Dobbs‘ ‘debates’ will no doubt rage on, in Texas and likely elsewhere, with no apparent end in sight.

Lilith Fund for Reproductive Equity v. Dickson, et al.

Posted on by justlawfulblog

But Is It Art?  New Hampshire Bakery Resists Town’s Demand to Take Down Donut Mural

Young, et al. v. Town of Conway, No. 23-cv-00070 (N.H.).

Justlawful observation:  one would not be entirely wrong to suspect that bakers are emerging as their own phalanx of champions of constitutional guarantees.  Within recent memory, Gibson’s Bakery challenged Oberlin College in defamation, and prevailed.  Masterpiece Cakeshop continues a sisyphean trek up and down the court house ladders in a quest to find the proper and respectful balance between competing constitutional claims. 

Live Free or Die: Currently a New Hampshire baker asserts he is being damaged because the Town of Conway wants to force him to tear down a huge mural depicting donuts and pastries which was painted for the bakery by local art students.

The town asserts that the mural, which has attracted much favorable attention, is a commercial sign that violates the town’s signage code.

The baker asserts that the town’s interference and demand for removal is content and speaker based discrimination, which is presumptively unconstitutional, and which the town cannot justify.  

Perhaps sensing that the town may be doing itself no favors by treading on the baker and donut art aficionados, the town has stipulated that it will take no action to remove the mural pending resolution of the case on the merits.   

The town’s response to the complaint filed on January 31, 2023, has not yet been submitted. 

Young v. Town of Conway, 23-cv-00070 (N.H.) Verified Complaint

Young v. Town of Conway, 23-cv-00070 (N.H.) Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of TRO

imageedit_13_4186924744

Photograph courtesy of Institute for Justice, https://ij.org

Posted on by justlawfulblog

“Doctor! Doctor! Give me the news!” Federal court in California says doctors can give patients news without threat of state sanctions for “misinformation,” at least for now.

Hoeg, et al. v. Newsom, 22-cv-1980 (E.D. Cal.); Hoang, et al. v. Attorney General, 22-cv-0214 (E.D. Cal). Order and opinion issued January 25, 2023.

California doctors have alleged that California elected and appointed officials may violate rights protected through 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 by threatening enforcement of a California statute prohibiting the provision of ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’ relating to scientific knowledge and standards, particularly where terms are vague and standards are susceptible of rapid change.

California enacted legislation prohibiting physician dissemination of “misinformation,” defined as false information contrary to scientific consensus.  The statute also prohibits intentional dissemination of misinformation, characterized as “disinformation.”  Both such offenses must occur in the context of the patient-physician relationship.  Violations re considered unprofessional conduct subject to disciplinary action.

The federal district court for the Eastern District of California has observed that plaintiffs’ claims implicate First Amendment “chilling effect” concerns, favoring standing, particularly where self-censorship is implicated.

Standing is liberally construed where statutory vagueness implicates First Amendment interests, as the Supreme Court has held that “the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas…”  (citation omitted).

This means that even if a statute does not apply to a person, if the statute interfrers with a right to receive information, standing to challenge that law exists.

Because the members of the associational plaintiffs would have standing to sue individually, the associations have standing.

Unconstitutional vagueness may be found where a statute leaves a speaker in doubt as to what is prohibited, thereby inhibiting speech.

The California statutory scheme provides that violation of the dissemination of misinformation/disinformation standards could be found where the information in issue could be outside “contemporary scientific consensus,” but the court found those terms to be vague as lacking in established meaning, leaving providers to guess what is prohibited.  This is especially so, the court observed, where “scientific consensus” is not fixed but is rapidly changing, subjecting providers to all the more heightened guesswork.

The court noted that precedent indicates that “the changing nature of a medical term’s meaning is evidence of vagueness.” Slip op. at 24. Forbes v. Napolitano, 236 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir. 2000).  

While no objective meaning of a statute’s term can be found, as is observed of “misinformation,” it is likely that a vagueness challenge will prove successful.

The inclusion of reference to a “standard of care” compounds confusion rather then providing clarification that might save the statute from a vagueness challenge.  Slip op. 15 26, n. 9.  Even if plausibly comprehensible, the statute improperly conflates advice, information and treatment.  Id.

The falsity required to find a disinformation violation is likewise constitutionally defective, the court observed, where what is “settled” is rarely so.

This separate ‘falsity’ element of the statute, even if it were to offer truthfulness as a defense, fails where “drawing a line between what is true and what is settled by scientific consensus is difficult, if not impossible,” the court has opined.  This is particularly so, the court noted, where evidence and inquiry is rapidly changing, as in pandemic conditions.  Slip op. at 27.

Any limiting construction proffered fails to save the statute, the court has observed, as the proffered construction would require rewriting the statute.

In granting a preliminary inunction against enforcement of the statute pending resolution on the merits, the court cautioned that its ruling was confined only to the Section 1983 vagueness challenge, and was not intended to reach the merits of the First Amendment claims.

Justlawful note:  If the court did not reach the First Amendment issues here, it is not unfair to say the court came fairly close to so doing.  The court may have its own reasons for guardedness: perhaps it was to dissuade an interlocutory appeal.

Justlawful Copyright Note:  Justlawful very much hopes that Robert Palmer, if he were alive, would consider a citation to his 1978 recording, written by Moon Martin, to be a compliment rather than an infringement,.  Should that hope fail, Justlawful would argue that this limited reference to a well known lyric would be fair use.

Hoeg, et al. v. Newsom and Hoang, et al. v. Attorney General Opinion January 25, 2023