Free Speech

Case - 135 S. Ct. 2239

Parties: JOHN WALKER, III, CHAIRMAN, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES BOARD, et al., Petitioners v. TEXAS DIVISION, SONS OF CONFEDERATE VETERANS, INC., et al.

Date: 2015-06-18

Identifiers:

Opinions:

Segment Sets:

Paragraph: 15 - We have therefore refused N143* "[t]o hold that the Government unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of viewpoint when it chooses to fund a program dedicated to advance certain permissible goals, because the program in advancing those goals necessarily [***12] discourages alternative goals." Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 194, 111 S. Ct. 1759, 114 L. Ed. 2d 233 (1991). We have pointed out that a contrary holding "would render numerous Government programs constitutionally suspect." Ibid. Cf. Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U.S. 1, 12-13, 110 S. Ct. 2228, 110 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1990) N144* ("If every citizen were to have a right to insist that no one paid by public funds express a view with which he disagreed, debate over issues of great concern to the public would be limited  [**282] to those in the private sector, and the process of government as we know it radically transformed"). And we have made clear that N145* "the government can speak for itself."

Notes:

  • N143* / quote / endorsement / Q0086 /
  • N144* / quote / endorsement / Q0087 /
  • N145* / quote / endorsement / arg109 /

Preferred Terms:

Phrase match: a right to insist that no

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20150618.135.SCt.2239.xml&keyword1=right to&wordsBefore=1&wordsAfter=3#m1

Search time: 2018-01-12 14:48:12 Searcher: ars9ef Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk

Paragraph: 13 - N68* When government speaks, it is not barred by the Free Speech Clause from determining the content of what it says. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467-468, 129 S. Ct. 1125, 172 L. Ed. 2d 853 (2009). That freedom in part reflects the fact that it is the democratic electoral process that first and foremost provides a check on government speech. See Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U.S. 217, 235, 120 S. Ct. 1346, 146 L. Ed. 2d 193 (2000). Thus, government statements (and government   actions and programs that take the form of speech) do not normally trigger the First Amendment rules designed to protect the marketplace of ideas.

Notes:

  • N68* / / / / marketplace of ideas

Preferred Terms:

  • (is) government speech

Phrase match: the Free Speech Clause from determining

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20150618.135.SCt.2239.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: 55 - The Court's decision passes off private speech as government speech and, in doing so, establishes a precedent that threatens private speech that government finds displeasing. Under our First Amendment cases, the distinction between government speech and private speech is critical. The   First Amendment N69* "does not regulate government speech," and therefore when government speaks, it is free "to select the views that it wants to express." Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 467-468, 129 S. Ct. 1125, 172 L. Ed. 2d 853 (2009). By contrast, "[i]n the realm of private speech or expression, government regulation may not favor one speaker over another." Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828, 115 S. Ct. 2510, 132 L. Ed. 2d 700 (1995).

Notes:

  • N69* / quote / endorsement / Q0269 /

Preferred Terms:

Phrase match: off private speech as government speech

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20150618.135.SCt.2239.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: 96 - Texas has space available on millions of little mobile billboards. And Texas, in effect, sells that space to those who wish to use it to express a personal message--provided only that the message does not express a viewpoint that the State finds unacceptable. That is not government speech; it is the regulation of private speech. III

Notes:

Preferred Terms:

  • (is) personalized licence plates

Phrase match: not government speech; it is the

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20150618.135.SCt.2239.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: 103 - Messages that are proposed by private parties and placed on Texas specialty plates are private speech, not government speech. Texas cannot forbid private speech based on its viewpoint. That is what it did here. Because the Court approves this violation of the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.

Notes:

Preferred Terms:

  • (is) personalized licence plates

Phrase match: are private speech, not government speech

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/2000s/20150618.135.SCt.2239.xml&keyword1=speech&wordsBefore=2&wordsAfter=3#m1

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