Free Speech

Case - 134 S. Ct. 2618

Parties: PAMELA HARRIS, et al., Petitioners v. PAT QUINN, GOVERNOR OF ILLINOIS, et al.

Date: 2014-06-30

Identifiers:

Opinions:

Segment Sets:

Paragraph: 79 - In Knox, we considered specific features of an agency-shop agreement--allowing a union to impose upon nonmembers a special assessment or dues increase without providing notice and without obtaining the nonmembers' affirmative agreement--and we held that these features could not even satisfy the standard employed in United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U. S. 405, 415, 121 S. Ct. 2334, 150 L. Ed. 2d 438 (2001), where we struck down a provision that compelled the subsidization of commercial speech. We did not suggest, however, that the compelled  [**654] speech in Knox was like the commercial speech in United Foods. On the contrary, we observed that N63* "[t]he subject of the speech at issue [in United Foods]--promoting the sale of mushrooms--was not one that is likely to stir the passions  [***55] of many, but the mundane commercial nature of that speech only highlights the importance of our analysis and our holding."

Notes:

  • N63* / quote / endorsement / Q0264 /

Preferred Terms:

  • (is) speech with commercial motive

Phrase match: of commercial speech. We did not

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20140630.134.SCt.2618.xml&keyword1=speech&wordsBefore=2&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2017-11-10 14:59:38 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk

Paragraph: 80 - Our precedents define commercial speech as N64* "speech that does no more than propose a commercial transaction,"

Notes:

Preferred Terms:

  • (is) mere proposals to engage in commercial transactions

Phrase match: define commercial speech as "speech that

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20140630.134.SCt.2618.xml&keyword1=speech&wordsBefore=2&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2017-11-10 14:59:38 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk

Paragraph: 137 - The Court struck the appropriate balance by drawing a line, corresponding to Pickering's, between fees for collective bargaining and those for political activities. On the one side, Abood decided, speech within the employment relationship about pay and working conditions pertains mostly to private concerns and implicates the government's interests as employer; thus, the government could compel fair-share fees for collective bargaining. On the other side, speech in political campaigns relates to matters of public concern and has no bearing on the government's interest in structuring its workforce; thus, compelled fees for those activities are forbidden. In that way, the law surrounding fair-share provisions coheres with the law relating to public employees' speech  [***100] generally. Or, said otherwise, an anomaly in the government's regulation of its workforce would arise in Abood's absence: Public employers could then pursue all policies, except this single one, reasonably designed to manage personnel and enhance the effectiveness of their programs.

Notes:

Preferred Terms:

  • (is) political speech

Phrase match: Abood decided, speech within the employment

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20140630.134.SCt.2618.xml&keyword1=speech&wordsBefore=2&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2017-11-10 14:59:38 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk

Paragraph: 140 - Our decisions (tracing from Pickering as well as Abood) teach that internal workplace speech about public employees' wages, benefits, and such--that is, the prosaic stuff of collective bargaining--does not become speech of "public concern" just because those employment terms may have broader consequence. To the contrary, we have made clear that except in narrow circumstances we will not allow an employee to make a N65* "federal constitutional issue" out of basic "employment matters, including working conditions, pay, discipline, promotions, leave, vacations, and terminations." Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, 564 U. S. ___, ___, 131 S. Ct. 2488, 2496, 180 L. Ed. 2d 408, 423 (2011) ); see Umbehr, 518 U. S., at 675, 116 S. Ct. 2342, 135 L. Ed. 2d 843 (public employees' "speech on merely private employment matters is unprotected"). Indeed, even  [***102] Abood's original detractors conceded that an employee's interest in expressing views, within the workplace context, about N66* "narrowly defined economic issues [like] salaries and pension benefits" is "relatively insignificant" and "weak."

Notes:

  • N65* / quote / endorsement / Q0266 /
  • N66* / quote / endorsement / Q0267 /

Preferred Terms:

  • (is not) workplace speech about basic employment matters

Phrase match: internal workplace speech about public employees

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20140630.134.SCt.2618.xml&keyword1=speech&wordsBefore=2&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2017-11-10 14:59:38 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk