Whether this is the right answer is not clear. It’s a special case of warnings to hide one’s illegal conduct because the police are coming — though here done by a stranger rather than by a lookout who’s in league with the criminals — and that in turn is a special case of what I call Crime-Facilitating Speech (see 57 Stan. L. Rev. 1095 (2005)), which is to say speech that conveys information that makes it easier for people to commit crimes or to get away with crimes. The Supreme Court has never squarely confronted this question.

When I’ve blogged about this in the past, some people have argued that flashing headlights should be protected because it’s encouraging legal behavior (slowing down) rather than illegal behavior, but I don’t think that can dispose of the issue: Many lookouts do the same, e.g., when a lookout warns would-be robbers to abandon their plans because a police car is driving by.

For an interesting similar question though one that doesn’t involve encouraging people to temporarily act legally), this story:

An advocate for immigrant and civil rights has started using text messages to warn residents about crime sweeps by a high-profile Arizona sheriff.

Lydia Guzman, director of the nonprofit immigrant advocacy group Respect/Respeto, is the trunk of a sophisticated texting tree designed to alert thousands of people within minutes to the details of the sweeps, which critics contend are an excuse to round up illegal immigrants.

Guzman said the messages are part of an effort to protect Latinos and others from becoming victims of racial profiling by sheriff’s deputies….

What’s the First-Amendment-relevant difference, if there is one, between this and a lookout who alerts criminals when the police are coming? (Assume that the lookout isn’t getting a share of the loot, but is just helping his friends avoid getting locked up.) Should it matter, as one expert who’s mentioned in the article suggests, whether Ms. Guzman’s real goal is preventing lawful arrest of illegal immigrants (as opposed to preventing racial profiling, assuming such profiling is unlawful)? I think there may indeed be a difference between such revelation of facts to the public and individualized communications to a small group of criminals, and I don’t think it should turn on jury inferences about the speaker’s true purpose; my article discusses the question at length. But in any event it’s helpful to think about what the difference might be.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge has reversed the 2002 rape and kidnapping conviction of former Long Beach Poly football standout Brian Banks.

Banks, now 26, was wrongly convicted of the charges based on the testimony of Wanetta Gibson, an acquaintance.

Gibson testified that Banks raped her on the Poly campus. Banks said the encounter was consensual.

Rather than face a prison term of from 41 years to life, Banks accepted a plea deal that [led to his spending 5 years in prison].

Gibson sued the Long Beach Unified School District, claiming the Poly campus was not a safe environment, and won a $1.5-million settlement.

Nearly a decade later, Gibson contacted Banks on Facebook, met with him and admitted that she had fabricated the story.

The AP account adds a twist:

According to documents in the case, she met with Banks and said she had lied; there had been was no kidnap and no rape and she offered to help him clear his record.

But she subsequently refused to repeat the story to prosecutors because she feared she would have to return a $1.5 million payment from a civil suit brought by her mother against Long Beach schools.

She was quoted as telling Banks: “I will go through with helping you but it’s like at the same time all that money they gave us, I mean gave me, I don’t want to have to pay it back.”

It’s not clear whether she ultimately did repeat the story to prosecutors, or whether the prosecutors got her admission some other way. In any event, I assume that — absent some statute of limitations barrier (a subject on which I’m not knowledgeable) — what’s left of the $1.5 million will indeed have to be paid back. (Thanks to Robert Dittmer for the pointer.)

This, by the way, raises again a difficult problem with he-said-she-said rape cases, where civil liability is available. I suspect that in a typical such case, one factor that cuts in the prosecution’s favor is “Why would she lie?” A defendant has ample reason to lie by saying that nonconsensual sex was actually consensual — his liberty is at stake. But a complainant in many cases has much less reason to lie by saying that consensual sex was actually nonconsensual; sure, in some situations there might be possible motivations for lying, but they are usually not nearly as strong as the defendant’s motivation.

Yet when the complainant can get millions of dollars in damages, either from a rich defendant on an intentional tort theory, or from some other entity — such as an employer or a school district — that could be held liable on a negligence theory, the complainant now has lots of reason to lie. Of course, this by no means that such a complainant will be lying, just as the defendant’s incentive to lie doesn’t mean that all defendants who testify that they’re innocent are lying. But it does, I think, make the defense’s case stronger and the prosecution’s case weaker.

The jurors don’t know for sure who’s telling the truth. But once they know that the complainant has a potential motive to lie, they’ll be less inclined to believe her — and at least to conclude that there’s a reasonable doubt about whether she’s telling the truth. If you were a juror and the evidence against the defendant besides the complainant’s testimony was weak, wouldn’t you be influenced by evidence that the complainant has a possible financial motive for making up the charges?

What to do about this, though, is not clear. Even if negligence liability against employers, school districts, and others for crimes by their employees or on their property is cut back — some people have argued that it should be — a victim could still sue a rich defendant, or even an upper-middle-class defendant who has some assets that could be seized. If someone physically attacks you, you’re entitled to get compensation from him. But this very possibility makes it harder to criminally prosecute rapists. I don’t know of a good solution to the problem, absent perfect lie detection technology or pervasive recordi

Minnesota has an interesting statute that allows courts to enjoin speech that “ha[s] a substantial adverse effect … on the … privacy” of a person, Minn. Stat. Ann. § 609.748. Five months ago it was used to issue an injunction banning online speech by a person about his ex-girlfriend, Johnson v. Arlotta (2011), but it has been used before as well.

I’m curious what people think of this — again, especially people who generally support the disclosure tort — given the lack of a statutory or judicial definition of what constitutes “privacy” for purposes of the statute, and the criminal penalties for violating the order. How should the statute be read, and is it constitutional? Should “privacy” be read as tortious invasion of privacy, with all the common-law twists on that (e.g., the exception for newsworthy speech, and the requirement that the speech be said to the public and not just as gossip within a circle of friends)? Is that sufficiently clear for an order that can be enforced through criminal penalties? Also, are temporary restraining orders under the statute — which may be issued ex parte — unconstitutional prior restraints?

Here’s the relevant excerpt:

(a) “Harassment” includes:
(1) a single incident of physical or sexual assault or repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another, regardless of the relationship between the actor and the intended target;
(2) targeted residential picketing; and
(3) a pattern of attending public events after being notified that the actor’s presence at the event is harassing to another….

(c) “Targeted residential picketing” includes the following acts when committed on more than one occasion:
(1) marching, standing, or patrolling by one or more persons directed solely at a particular residential building in a manner that adversely affects the safety, security, or privacy of an occupant of the building ….

Subd. 4. Temporary restraining order. (a) The court may issue a temporary restraining order ordering the respondent to cease or avoid the harassment of another person or to have no contact with that person if the petitioner files a petition in compliance with subdivision 3 and if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent has engaged in harassment. When a petition alleges harassment as defined by subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause (1), the petition must further allege an immediate and present danger of harassment before the court may issue a temporary restraining order under this section….

(b) Notice need not be given to the respondent before the court issues a temporary restraining order under this subdivision….

(c) The temporary restraining order is in effect until a hearing is held on the issuance of a restraining order under subdivision 5. The court shall hold the hearing on the issuance of a restraining order if the petitioner requests a hearing. The hearing may be continued by the court upon a showing that the respondent has not been served with a copy of the temporary restraining order despite the exercise of due diligence or if service is made by published notice under subdivision 3 and the petitioner files the affidavit required under that subdivision.

(d) If the temporary restraining order has been issued and the respondent requests a hearing, the hearing shall be scheduled by the court upon receipt of the respondent’s request. Service of the notice of hearing must be made upon the petitioner not less than five days prior to the hearing. The court shall serve the notice of the hearing upon the petitioner by mail in the manner provided in the Rules of Civil Procedure for pleadings subsequent to a complaint and motions and shall also mail notice of the date and time of the hearing to the respondent. In the event that service cannot be completed in time to give the respondent or petitioner the minimum notice required under this subdivision, the court may set a new hearing date….

Subd. 5. Restraining order. (a) The court may grant a restraining order ordering the respondent to cease or avoid the harassment of another person or to have no contact with that person if all of the following occur:
(1) the petitioner has filed a petition under subdivision 3 [and the order has been served on the respondent];
(2) the sheriff has served respondent with a copy of the temporary restraining order obtained under subdivision 4, and with notice of the right to request a hearing, or service has been made by publication under subdivision 3, paragraph (b); and
(3) the court finds at the hearing that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent has engaged in harassment.
A restraining order may be issued only against the respondent named in the petition; except that if the respondent is an organization, the order may be issued against and apply to all of the members of the organization. If the court finds that the petitioner has had two or more previous restraining orders in effect against the same respondent or the respondent has violated a prior or existing restraining order on two or more occasions, relief granted by the restraining order may be for a period of up to 50 years. In all other cases, relief granted by the restraining order must be for a fixed period of not more than two years. When a referee presides at the hearing on the petition, the restraining order becomes effective upon the referee’s signature….

(c) If the court orders relief for a period of up to 50 years under paragraph (a), the respondent named in the restraining order may request to have the restraining order vacated or modified if the order has been in effect for at least five years and the respondent has not violated the order….At the hearing, the respondent named in the restraining order has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that there has been a material change in circumstances and that the reasons upon which the court relied in granting the restraining order no longer apply and are unlikely to occur. If the court finds that the respondent named in the restraining order has met the burden of proof, the court may vacate or modify the order. If the court finds that the respondent named in the restraining order has not met the burden of proof, the court shall deny the request and no request may be made to vacate or modify the restraining order until five years have elapsed from the date of denial. An order vacated or modified under this paragraph must be personally served on the petitioner named in the restraining order.

Subd. 6…. (b) Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (c) and (d), when a temporary restraining order or a restraining order is granted under this section and the respondent knows of the order, violation of the order is a misdemeanor.
(c) A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor who knowingly violates the order within ten years of a previous qualified domestic violence-related offense conviction or adjudication of delinquency.
(d) A person is guilty of a felony and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or to payment of a fine of not more than $10,000, or both, if the person knowingly violates the order:
(1) within ten years of the first of two or more previous qualified domestic violence-related offense convictions or adjudications of delinquency;
(2) because of the victim’s or another’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability as defined in section 363A.03, age, or national origin;
(3) by falsely impersonating another;
(4) while possessing a dangerous weapon;
(5) with an intent to influence or otherwise tamper with a juror or a judicial proceeding or with intent to retaliate against a judicial officer, as defined in section 609.415, or a prosecutor, defense attorney, or officer of the court, because of that person’s performance of official duties in connection with a judicial proceeding; or
(6) against a victim under the age of 18, if the respondent is more than 36 months older than the victim….

The parties stipulated to the facts underlying this appeal. Baker was charged with violating section 720.4 based on a telephone conversation Baker had with Debra Krause, who had recently served as a juror in a criminal proceeding against one Greg Schoo, a friend of Baker. On May 8, 2003, the jury convicted Schoo of first-degree burglary, which carries a mandatory twenty-five-year prison sentence.

The day after the verdict was rendered Krause received a phone call that began with the caller’s question, “Is this Deb?” Because Krause and Baker had previously worked together, Krause recognized Baker’s voice. In addition, Krause’s caller ID confirmed the call was made from Baker’s telephone. When Krause responded that yes, she was Deb, the caller stated, “This is Rose.” The caller then asked Krause “if [she] knew that [she] gave him 25 years.” Krause understood Baker was referring to Schoo. Krause told Baker she did not know what sentence Schoo had received. Baker then stated: “Well, I just thought you should know you gave him 25 years,” and hung up the phone.

Krause notified law enforcement of Baker’s call. Although Krause did not feel threatened by Baker, she was bothered and upset by the call and Baker’s tone of voice. According to Krause, she “was in disbelief that [Baker] had called [her] to say that.” Krause said she “did not beg and plead to be one of the jurors,” and would rather not have been picked, but it was “something [she] had to do — whether [she] wanted to or not!”

Baker was charged with jury tampering, under a statute that provides, “A person who … in retaliation for anything lawfully done by any witness or juror in any case, harasses such witness or juror, commits an aggravated misdemeanor.” “Harassment” is in turn defined as, “with intent to intimidate, annoy, or alarm another person, … [c]ommunicat[ing] with another by telephone, telegraph, writing, or via electronic communication without legitimate purpose, and in a manner likely to cause the other person annoyance or harm.” The court of appeals concluded that the prosecution could go forward:

Here there was clearly a jury question under the stipulated facts whether Baker contacted Krause to gather factual information about Krause’s knowledge and views of the sentencing system, or whether the contact was intended to intimidate or alarm Krause in retaliation for her role in convicting Schoo.

Rosemary Baker was ultimately convicted on remand.

The court of appeals decision, it seems to me, is wrong and quite dangerous. The court seems to be suggesting that the impermissible purpose might be a purpose to make Krause feel frightened (“intimidate[d] or alarm[ed]“) — but if the stipulated facts are sufficient to permit a prosecution based on this theory, then no-one is safe expressing to a juror that they thought the juror helped work an injustice, or for that matter expressing to other people that they thought those people did something bad. There is always the danger that a hostile prosecutor, judge, and jury will infer a bad purpose on your part, even when there were no threatening words, the listener makes clear that she didn’t feel threatened, and the listener knows you and has no reason from past contact to fear you. Whatever the scope of the “true threats” exception to the First Amendment, I doubt it can be broad enough to cover speech such as this.

Of course, it’s plausible, given the stipulated facts, that Baker might have wanted Krause to feel sorry or unhappy about what she helped do. But I doubt such a desire can strip such speech of constitutional protection, and in any event it seems to me a “legitimate purpose” for purposes of the statute (or else any call to someone to tell them that they did something bad, and to make them feel bad about it, would potentially be criminal “harassment”). At the very least, the phrase “without legitimate purpose” doesn’t sufficiently inform people that such a purpose is impermissible (and is, I think, unconstitutionally vague).

More broadly, I’m quite troubled by such laws that prohibit a considerable amount of conduct, much of which would be constitutionally protected, and then try to avoid this overbreadth by limiting the prohibition to conduct that lacks a “legitimate purpose.” Who can know what purposes the legal system will eventually find “legitimate”? If you want to punish threats, punish threats. If you want to punish behavior that has the purpose of assisting some crime, punish that. But don’t just leave to future prosecutors, judges, and juries the decision about what’s “legitimate” and what isn’t — and thus leave citizens uncertain about what’s allowed and what’s not.

This is our lot if we live so long and labour unto the end –
Then we outlive the impatient years and the much too patient friend:
And because we know we have breath in our mouth and think we have thought in our head,
We shall assume that we are alive, whereas we are really dead.

We shall not acknowledge that old stars fade or stronger planets arise
(That the sere bush buds or the desert blooms or the ancient well-head dries),
Or any new compass wherewith new men adventure ‘neath new skies.

We shall lift up the ropes that constrained our youth, to bind on our children’s hands;
We shall call to the waters below the bridges to return and to replenish our lands;
We shall harness (Death’s own pale horses) and scholarly plough the sands.

We shall lie down in the eye of the sun for lack of a light on our way –
We shall rise up when the day is done and chirrup, “Behold, it is day!”
We shall abide till the battle is won ere we amble into the fray.

We shall peck out and discuss and dissect, and evert and extrude to our mind,
The flaccid tissues of long-dead issues offensive to God and mankind –
(Precisely like vultures over an ox that the army left behind).

We shall make walk preposterous ghosts of the glories we once created –
Immodestly smearing from muddled palettes amazing pigments mismated –
And our friend will weep when we ask them with boasts if our natural force be abated.

The Lamp of our Youth will be utterly out, but we shall subsist on the smell of it;
And whatever we do, we shall fold our hands and suck our gums and think well of it.
Yes, we shall be perfectly pleased with our work, and that is the Perfectest Hell of it!

This is our lot if we live so long and listen to those who love us –
That we are shunned by the people about and shamed by the Powers above us.
Wherefore be free of your harness betimes; but, being free be assured,
That he who hath not endured to the death, from his birth he hath never endured!

Thanks to Boston.com for the pointer. (I don’t know whether this was inserted by the alumnus himself — apparently the norm for the directory — or by someone else.)

Note that the government acting as employer has much more power over on-the-job speech of its employees than it does over the speech of private citizens and private employees (more on that here). In particular, it’s possible that the Department could restrict the display of items that cause substantial tension among coworkers, though it sounds like in this instance the Department ultimately chose not to do this (whether based on a judgment that the plate wasn’t disruptive enough, a desire to avoid litigation, or something else).

Michigan is one of 10 states in which gun deaths now outpace motor vehicle deaths, according to a study released Thursday by the Washington, D.C.-based Violence Policy Center.

But don’t expect the from-my-cold-dead-hands crowd to embrace the center’s conclusion that the disparity has everything to do with federal regulation — extensive and wildly successful in the case of motor vehicles, and virtually non-existent in the case of firearms.

“The idea that gun deaths exceed motor vehicle deaths in 10 states is stunning when one considers that 90% of American households own a car, while fewer than a third own firearms,” VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand said. “It is time to end firearms’ status as the last unregulated consumer product.” …

“Motor vehicle deaths are on the decline as the result of a successful decades-long public health-based injury prevention strategy that includes safety-related changes to vehicles and highway design informed by comprehensive data collection and analysis,” a release accompanying the VPC study said. “Meanwhile, firearms are the only consumer product not regulated by the federal government for health and safety.”

But wait: The number of accidental gun deaths in Michigan in 2009 (the most recent year reported in WISQARS) was … 12, compared to 962 accidental motor-vehicle-related deaths. 99% of the gun deaths in Michigan that year consisted of suicides (575) and homicides (495).

Now say what you will about whether some gun control laws might reduce suicides or homicides, but it’s extremely unlikely that any “safety-related changes” or “regulat[ions] … for health and safety” are going to eliminate all but a tiny fraction of those suicides and homicides, which are overwhelmingly intentional acts by people who are willing to kill and are unlikely to be stopped by “regulat[ion] by the federeal government for health and safety.” Yet curiously the op-ed says nothing about how few of the gun deaths were accidental, and how few homicides or suicides could be prevented by “safety-related changes” along the lines of the safety regulations imposed on cars.

This also helps explain, I think, why gun rights supporters are so worried about “health and safety” proposals. Precisely because such proposals are so unlikely to have much of an effect, the gun rights supporters naturally assume that the backers of the proposals aren’t really after modest car-like “regulat[ions] … for health and safety,” but are actually trying to bring about much more aggressive sorts of gun restrictions.

In October 2009, defendant worked as a security guard for a private company at Newark Liberty International Airport. Vice–President Biden had recently flown into the airport, and President Obama was scheduled to arrive the next day on Air Force One.

Defendant and two other individuals who worked at the airport were standing at a lunch truck near the runway where the President’s plane was scheduled to land, when defendant remarked how easy it would be for someone to shoot the President. He pointed out that anyone with a gun could fire at the President, as he left his plane, from surrounding locations, such as defendant’s work post, the roofs of nearby buildings or the fenced area enclosing the runway. The men defendant spoke to were sufficiently alarmed by his statements to report them immediately to the Port Authority police.

Within hours, law enforcement personnel questioned defendant and, with his consent, searched his residence. There, law enforcement discovered and seized about seventy weapons, including rifles, handguns, hunting knives, crossbow and arrow sets, hollow point bullets and other ammunition, as well as permits and storage cases. A record check revealed that one of the guns had been stolen from Alabama. Defendant was arrested and charged with terroristic threats against the President, N.J.S.A. 2C:12–3b, receiving stolen property, N.J.S.A. 2C:20–7a, and unlawful possession of hollow point bullets, N.J.S.A. 2C:39–3f(1). A restraining order was issued barring defendant from any contact with the President or his family.

Defendant is from a family of hunters and had an extensive and valuable gun collection. With the exception of one gun which, unknown to defendant, was reportedly stolen from Alabama, defendant legally possessed the other guns and had the appropriate firearms permits. No weapon was found in defendant’s possession when he was arrested at his place of employment….

On November 12, 2009, defendant pled guilty to two counts of disorderly persons harassment against the two individuals who heard defendant’s conjectures at the lunch truck, N.J.S.A. 2C:33–4. Both weapons charges were dismissed. At that time defendant requested the return of all property seized from his home, but the prosecutor refused.

On July 12, 2010, defendant moved before the trial judge who had taken his guilty plea for an order compelling the State to return his property, except for the hollow point bullets and stolen rifle. The State filed a written opposition to the motion, which failed to cite any statutory, regulatory or precedential authority. At the hearing on the motion, the assistant prosecutor “concede[d] that after thorough investigation by the federal authorities, the Port Authority police and my office, that we did not see this as a major threat.” The prosecutor also acknowledged the two mental health evaluations that defendant had in prison, which “the State concede[d] he passed.” Nonetheless, based upon “the whole totality of the circumstances,” the State opposed the return of the weapons. In denying defendant’s motion, the trial judge, without providing any legal basis, ruled:

[W]e live in a very different time [since September 11, 2001] and in a very different world; we don’t engage in certain conduct involving words or acts that can be interpreted as threats to our elected officials, threats to our citizens, threats to the health, safety and welfare of everyone. And that phrase, or concept, the public health, safety and welfare, I think trumps everything…. Mr. Brek’s character is not at issue. At no time has the State — at least to my knowledge — brought … [Mr.] Brek’s character into this…. I believe that the public health, safety and welfare of our citizens does come into play here, and accordingly, I am going to deny Mr. Brek’s application for the return of his weapons.

This appeal followed.

Guess how the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division ruled, and then read on.

It is not disputed that the property seized by the State that defendant requests be returned was lawfully acquired, that plaintiff had obtained the necessary permits to purchase the firearms, and that defendant’s possession of the firearms and other weapons in his residence was lawful. Thus, the State has alleged no facts before the trial judge or on appeal that would give rise to a claim of prima facie forfeiture. N.J.S.A. 2C:64–1a(1). Consequently, the State could only seek derivative forfeiture of defendant’s property, for which it was required to bring a civil action within ninety days of its seizure. N.J.S.A. 2C:64–3a.

Not only has the State failed to file a timely civil action, it has provided no extenuating circumstances to request an equitable extension of time. More importantly, the State does not make a claim or allege any facts to demonstrate that the property seized meets the statutory definition of derivative contraband, N.J.S.A. 2C:64–1a. Nowhere in the record does the State allege that the property at issue was used in furtherance of a crime, as an integral part of an illegal activity, or as the proceeds of illegal activity.

Instead, the State argued that forfeiture was appropriate because defendant’s possession of hollow point bullets and a stolen rifle had shown that he was a threat to the public health, safety and welfare. The State compared the forfeiture of defendant’s property to the revocation or denial of a firearms permit if a person is found to be a threat. N.J.S.A. 2C:58–3. The trial judge, without referencing any statute, also used this analogy. We reject this argument as inapposite. This action does not involve the application for or revocation of a firearms permit under N.J.S.A. 2C:58–3, which is based upon a different statutory scheme than the Forfeiture Act. Furthermore, the property held by the State consists of many items, such as knives and bows and arrows, not covered by the firearms law.

Based upon the record before us, we cannot uphold the trial judge’s finding that the State had the right to retain defendant’s property as it was not based upon the required procedure in the Forfeiture Statute. Under that law, the State was required to file a civil action for forfeiture within ninety days of the seizure of the property. N.J.S.A. 2C:64–3a. The State neither made the requisite filing nor proffered extenuating circumstances for an extension of that time limitation. Even when requesting a remand for a forfeiture hearing, the State did not contend that requisite facts existed to prove the elements for prima facie or derivative contraband under N.J.S.A. 2C:64–1a. Accordingly, as the State had not moved timely under the Forfeiture Act, defendant is entitled to have his property returned to him.

[A] claim of harassment is … actionable if the harassment to which Complainant has allegedly been subjected was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of Complainant’s employment….

In this case, Complainant has alleged that he notified the Postmaster as early as March 2011 of employees repeatedly wearing Confederate flag t-shirts to work, but it was not until May 2011, that the Postmaster finally instructed the supervisor to start sending the employees home to change. Complainant argues that the Postmaster “procrastinated in taking action on my complaint” and that he filed the complaint, in part, because of the Postmaster’s “lack of concern for my feelings associated with this matter.” Complainant explained that he was offended by the t-shirts because he saw the Confederate flag as a symbol of racism that evoked the history of slavery. Complainant also alleged that he is now fearful of one the employees he complained about because the employee has started parking his car off Agency properly and Complainant believes he might have a weapon in his car.

Based on the circumstances alleged by Complainant, we conclude that he has stated a viable claim of discriminatory harassment which requires further investigation…. [U]nder certain circumstances, a limited number of highly offensive slurs related to a federal employee’s race may in fact state a claim or support a finding of discrimination under Title VII. Moreover, Complainant has alleged that it took the Postmaster nearly two months to finally take action to stop his coworkers from wearing the offensive t-shirts….

This case involved a government employer, but the EEOC applies precisely the same standards — speech is actionable if it is “severe or pervasive” enough to create a hostile, abusive, or offensive work environment based on race, religion, sex, and so on for a plaintiff and for a reasonable person — to government employment as courts do to private employment. So under the EEOC’s reasoning, an employer must order its employees to stop wearing Confederate flag T-shirts whenever someone complains, or risk massive liability in court.

As I’ve argued before, hostile work environment harassment law suppresses a broad range of speech, including speech related to political, religious, social, or artistic matters. And when applied to what I call “one-to-many” speech (as opposed to speech that is said to one particular person), I think the law is unconstitutional: It involves the government, acting as sovereign, imposing a content-based and viewpoint-based restriction on people’s speech.

To be sure, a private employer has broad authority to restrict speech on its property (just as a private blog operator, service provider, commercial landlord, university, church, or homeowner has such authority). And a government employer has fairly broad such authority as well, for instance if it concludes that such speech sufficiently undermines the employer’s mission. But harassment law involves the government using legal coercion to pressure employers to restrict people’s speech; that’s where the strong First Amendment constraints on government action should come in. Much as I dislike displays of the Confederate flag, the First Amendment can’t allow the government to suppress them through the threat of legal liability.

In any event, this case, I think, helps illustrate my point. If the EEOC is right, then employers essentially have a legal duty to suppress Confederate flag displays whenever they are engaged in by an employee and a coworker is offended. Employers also have such a duty whenever they are engaged in by patrons and an employee is offended, since employers have a duty to prevent “hostile work environments” created by patrons. Bars and other places of public accommodation would also have a similar duty not to display Confederate flags and similar imagery, and to eject patrons who do the same, so long as a patron complaints that he is offended.

And of course the same could in principle apply not just to speech that is perceived as racist, but also speech that is perceived as anti-Islam, anti-Christianity, anti-Hispanic-immigrant, anti-women, anti-men, and so on. (See, e.g., the Tufts anti-Islam ad incident, Doe v. City of New York & Bruce Tefft, and Rodriguez v. Maricopa County Community College Dist..) “Hostile environment harassment law” is a serious and often unconstitutional threat to free speech, whether in workplaces — where most people spend a third of their waking hours — or universities or places of public accommodation; this incident is just the latest example.

UPDATE: Hans Bader (Open Market) has more.

To ensure that individuals and entities licensed under this act observe common standards of decency, the commission shall, in consultation with the Association of Boxing Commissioners, establish a professional code of ethical conduct for mixed martial arts promoters and fighters. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, upon receiving a complaint, the commission shall enforce the code of ethical conduct and may suspend, revoke, or refuse to issue or renew the license of any mixed martial arts promoter or fighter that it finds has violated this code of conduct. Violations of this code shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

(a) Engaging in actions or activities such as acts resulting in felony convictions or convictions for crimes involving moral turpitude, sexual assault, ethnic or religious slurs, hate speech, or obscene language, failing to respond to a subpoena, or incurring sanctions imposed by a judge or court of law.

I don’t think mixed martial arts fighters should be denied the right to compete — and denied it by law, not just by a private organization’s decision — simply because they have a criminal record. That’s especially so when the criminal record can involve relatively less significant offenses, such as contempt of court, or “crimes involving” “obscene language.”

But it seems to me especially wrong, and unconstitutional, to strip people of their livelihood based on viewpoint-based criteria such as whether their crimes involved “ethnic or religious slurs” or “hate speech.” To be sure, such conduct has to be independently a crime (e.g., disturbing the peace through trying to provoke a fight, or making loud noise, or what have you); ethnic slurs, religious slurs, and “hate speech” — whatever that vague term might mean — aren’t themselves crimes. But as R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) held, even if the government may outlaw certain kinds of speech (such as “fighting words”), it may not outlaw in ways that are viewpoint-based (or otherwise impermissibly content-based). Just as R.A.V. barred the imposition of greater penalties on bigoted fighting words than other fighting words, so it bars the loss of a license for crimes that involve “ethnic or religious slurs” or “hate speech” but not for comparable crimes that don’t involve such speech.

I recognize that hate crimes laws that increase the penalty for crimes based on the defendant’s discriminatory selection of a victim are constitutional, see the unanimous Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993), and I think that decision is correct: The law has long allowed punishments to turn partly on the defendant’s motivation, and the selection of a victim based on particular criteria may indeed be a permissible basis for such distinctions (just as employment law may permissibly distinguish firing someone based on that person’s race or sex from firing the person based on something else). But R.A.V. makes clear that the law may not make the viewpoint of a person’s speech — as opposed to his victim selection decision — a basis for enhanced punishment.

And the same, I think, would apply to disqualification from the occupation of mixed martial arts fighting. Assemblyman Luis Alejo, the sponsor of the bill, and Assembly members Nora Campos, Betsy Butler, Mike Gatto, Tony Mendoza, and Bill Monning ought to know better, or at least seek out better counsel.

I blogged last month about the school district’s refusal to allow the shirt; “the message communicated by the student’s T-shirt,” the district argued, “was sexual in nature and therefore indecent and inappropriate in a school setting.” The student sued on First Amendment grounds, and Lambda Legal reports that the district has settled; here are the key terms:

2. The Defendants are enjoined from prohibiting Plaintiff Maverick Couch from wearing the “Jesus Is Not A Homophobe” T-shirt, which is more fully described in paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff is expressly permitted to wear the “Jesus Is Not A Homophobe” T-shirt to school when he chooses….

4. Defendants are ordered to pay damages and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, in the amount of $20,000 to Plaintiff on or before July 5, 2012.

Thanks to my coblogger Jonathan Adler for the pointer.

UPDATE: For the official roll call, see here.

On February 20, 2010, Tiemann went to HS’s home at her invitation. They went to the guest house and proceeded to “make out.” HS said that after Tiemann removed her shirt, she protested when he tried to remove her bra and told him “she really didn’t want to do this.” Tiemann allegedly told her he had done this before and not to worry. HS said that ultimately, Tiemann removed all her cloths, digitally penetrated her, and performed cunnilingus on her. She said she told him she “didn’t want to” while he was digitally penetrating her but then “gave in because she knew he wouldn’t stop.” She claimed that during the subsequent sexual acts, she told him to stop, and he did, but then started again. HS said that Tiemann stopped completely when she told him to stop a second time. After that, they dressed, lay down on the couch together, and fell asleep.

Tiemann admitted that HS said once that they were moving too fast, but then she said that she would be okay. He claimed that she pulled him back on three occasions when he asked if she wanted him to leave. He also acknowledged that HS said she wanted to stop while he was digitally penetrating her, and he offered to leave. Further, he acknowledged that she sat up and that he laid her back down four times. He claimed that he was not forcing her during penile-vaginal sex. Further, he acknowledged understanding that she wanted to stop when she expressed that she was uncomfortable. When asked if he should have stopped, Tiemann said “Yeah, lots of times.” Finally, Tiemann stated that he felt he was being pushy when he told her to relax and be comfortable with it and that eventually it seemed that she was comfortable because it “felt like she just gave in.” However, he said he “forc[ed] it on her a couple of times” and that he knew it was wrong….

[T]he parties reached a plea agreement whereby Tiemann was to plead no contest to one [Criminal Sexual Conduct] III [statutory rape] count and the other charges [alleging force or coercion] would be dismissed. After reviewing two case report summaries of interviews of the victim and Tiemann, the trial court accepted the plea. The trial court found a factual basis for a determination that Tiemann had intercourse with the victim who was between the age of 13 and 16 (there was no mention of force or coercion).

Apparently, an initial order of adjudication indicated that Tiemann was convicted based on force or coercion. However, a corrected order of adjudication specifies that the victim’s age was the basis for the conviction….

An amendment to [the Sexual Offender Registration Act] subsequently took effect and provided that for cases pending on July 1, 2011, a juvenile could be excused from registration under the SORA under certain circumstances if he could establish consent. The trial court therefore held a trial on the issue of consent. At the trial, various witnesses were called, and HS read a statement into the record giving a more detailed account of what transpired on the night in question. In this account, she indicated that she may have acquiesced “so that he wouldn’t be so mean” but gave further indications that the sex was not consensual. Ultimately, the trial court found that Tiemann was not exempt from SORA registration requirements.

Note that to get an exemption from the registration requirement, the defendant must prove consent by a preponderance of the evidence. In a typical criminal case alleging nonconsensual sex, the prosecution must prove absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt. Still, the common question in these cases is what counts as “consent.”

WOMAN HURT BY GUNSHOT

Mrs. Ruth A. Nichols, 164 Eastview, was treated at St. Joseph Hospital for a bullet wound in her arm after a shooting at her home, police said.

A 40-year-old woman was held by police in connection with the shooting with a .22 rifle. Police said a shot was also fired at the suspect’s husband.

Officers said the incident took place Thursday night after the suspect arrived at the Nichols home and found her husband there with Mrs. Nichols.

Witnesses said the suspect first fired a shot at her husband and then at Mrs. Nichols, striking her in the arm, police reported.

No charges had been placed.

Please think briefly about the story, and then click on the link before to learn what the court decided.

Did you read the story as suggesting that the shooter found her husband in a compromising position with Mrs. Nichols — perhaps having sex, or having had sex, or being just about to have sex? That’s apparently how many readers read the story as well.

But it turns out that, though each statement in the story was literally true, Mrs. Nichols was at the Nichols home together with the shooter’s husband, Mr. Nichols, and two neighbors. They were apparently all sitting in the living room, talking.

The court concluded that the story could be libelous — assuming negligence was shown on the newspaper’s part — because, even though the statements were literally true, they carried a strong implication (that the husband and Mrs. Nichols were together by themselves in a compromising position) that was false:

In our opinion, the defendant’s reliance on the truth of the facts stated in the article in question is misplaced. The proper question is whether the meaning reasonably conveyed by the published words is defamatory, “whether the libel as published would have a different effect on the mind of the reader from that which the pleaded truth would have produced.” The publication of the complete facts could not conceivably have led the reader to conclude that Mrs. Nichols and Mr. Newton had an adulterous relationship. The published statement, therefore, so distorted the truth as to make the entire article false and defamatory. It is no defense whatever that individual statements within the article were literally true. Truth is available as an absolute defense only when the defamatory meaning conveyed by the words is true.

Such “defamation by half-truth” decisions are rare. All statements, after all, omit something, and one can always argue that the full story would convey a somewhat different message from the partial story. Usually that’s not enough to turn literal truth into libel. But in some situations, where the statement does carry a very strong implication that turns out to be false, a libel claim can indeed be brought even when the statement is literally true.

Another classic example — though just a hypothetical and not a real case — involves the first mate who, upset by his teetotaling captain, writes in the ship’s log,

Captain sober today.

The statement may be literally accurate (the captain was sober today, as on all days) but it carries a very strong implication that turns out to be false (that today was unusual in this respect).

H.P. Grice’s work on conversational implicatures, by the way, relates to this.

In a discussion thread on another blog, I hazarded an observation that marriage is NOT a contract as typically defined at law. I based this on my view that marriage does not contain elements that a contract must contain, such as a definition of goods and services offered in exchange for consideration.

My interlocutor held that marriage does, indeed, contain all the necessary elements of a contract, including defined exchange and “payment” for it.

I have researched this question online, but can find no satisfactory answer. Black’s Law (2nd ed.) seems to treat marriage as a legal status, but not a contract. At the same time, there’s no lack of other commentaries which pointedly describe marriage as a contractual relationship.

So: Might you and your conspirators shed some light on the question by posting your thoughts: Is marriage — technically — a legal contract?

I thought I’d response to this on-blog because it illustrates a considerably broader point: In law, as in life, concepts like “contract” aren’t unitary things, so that either something is a contract and has all the properties of a contract or something isn’t a contract. There are different kinds of contract, with different qualities, and different possible definitions for the term “contract.”

To begin with, “contract” is a quite broad concept. I don’t want to try to give a thorough definition here, but suffice it to say that an exchange of promises might well be a contract even if the promises don’t involve money, goods, or even services. Thus, for instance, “Each of us promises not to be anyone else’s bridge partner” can be a contract; it’s an exchange of promises not to engage in certain conduct. (Note that the contract doesn’t promise that I’ll be your bridge partner, just that I won’t be anyone else’s.) Substitute something else for “bridge,” and you’ll have one aspect of a marriage contract.

But beyond this, it turns out that a marriage contract is a contract — it’s an exchange of promises, it has effect because of consent of the parties, and it after all is called a marriage “contract.” But it also has many consequences that a normal contract doesn’t have: Not so long ago, it turned otherwise criminal sexual conduct (fornication) into legal conduct. Even today, it has that effect with marriages where one party is too young to consent to sex but old enough to consent to marriage (usually with the parents’ consent). It makes the parties’ children legitimate, which used to have very important legal effects and still has some legal effects. It gives the parties the right to refuse to testify against each other in court. If one party is not a citizen, it gives the party a relatively easy path to citizenship. The list could go on.

It also lacks some of the properties of a normal contract. It can be severed pursuant to divorce laws without the opportunity to sue for damages for breach of contract. It is not governed by the Contracts Clause of the Constitution, so that newly enacted divorce laws could impair the obligation of existing contracts of marriage (see the Dartmouth College Case (1819)).

So marriage is a contract, and has long been described as a contract, but it’s a very peculiar kind of contract that has its own special legal rules. To ask whether marriage is “technically” a contract doesn’t make much sense, because it presupposes a single unique meaning for the term “contract.” If by contract you mean “a contract as typically defined at law,” which is to say a contract that has most of the legal consequences that a typical contract has, then the answer is “largely not,” because marriage contracts have such specialized legal consequences. If by contract you mean “something the law has typically labeled a contract,” the answer is “probably yes,” simply because “marriage contract” has long been a common term. If by contract you mean “a mutual agreement that the law treats as binding as a consequence of the parties’ having agreed to it,” then the answer is “yes.”

So, as I said, there are different kinds of contract, with different qualities, and different possible definitions for the term “contract.” In math, you can ask, “is a number even, or is it odd?” In law, asking “is X a contract?” will often yield the response, “in what sense, and for what purposes?”

Thanks to Opher Banarie for the pointer. Disclosure: I have occasionally worked on Google legal projects, and was recently commissioned by Google to write a white paper.

All participants must observe Islamic laws, which includes but is not limited to, good moral standards, maintaining proper hijab, keeping away from backbiting and gossiping, presenting oneself with respect and dignity, maintaining decency with appropriate clothing and more. Brothers and sisters must show respect for each other. Any misconduct may lead to expulsion from the camp if deemed necessary.

Under Michigan law, a property-owning organization is treated as a charitable organization and can therefore claim tax-exempt status for its property when it is organized “for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their minds or hearts under the influence of education or religion, by relieving their bodies from disease, suffering or constraint, by assisting them to establish themselves for life, or by erecting or maintaining public buildings or works or otherwise lessening the burdens of government” and at the same time “does not offer its charity on a discriminatory basis by choosing who, among the group it purports to serve, deserves the services.” The Township argued that Camp Retreats didn’t qualify, because, in relevant part,

1) it discriminates in determining who can use the subject property, 2) participation in the Tawheed Summer Camp, sponsored by Petitioner’s parent organization, and the primary user of the subject facilities, is conditioned specifically on observance of Islamic laws and management, [and] 3) Petitioner has not established by testimony or exhibits that Petitioner’s purpose is to “bring people’s minds or hearts under the influence of education or religion,” nor do they “relieve people’s bodies from disease, suffering or constraint[.]“

The Tax Tribunal concluded that Camp Retreats was indeed not a charity, because it was “is chiefly organized for recreational purposes rather than for charitable purposes.” The Tribunal’s opinion didn’t discuss the “bringing … minds or hearts under the influence of … religion” part of the test, and relied on the fact that the articles of incorporation for the camp focused on recreation rather than religion.

The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning that the tax tribunal should have looked at how the property was actually used rather than focusing on what the articles of incorporation said, and that the actual use of the property was indeed charitable under Michigan law:

In reaching [its] conclusions, the Tribunal disregarded its own factual determination that the facility was chiefly used as camp for children and families of the Muslim faith, and in so doing misapplied the law. We find that the property fulfills the requirements of a charity because its primary use focuses on “bring[ing] people’s minds or hearts under the influence of … religion,” and it offers this charity on a nondiscriminatory basis.

As the Tax Tribunal recognized in its findings of fact, various groups sharing an identity with Islam constitute the principal users of the camp facility: “Most groups renting the subject facilities were of the Islamic faith because the facilities are constructed to separate and ‘manage’ the two genders and because the availability of the facilities was generated through word of mouth communications among Muslims.” Indeed, unrebutted evidence established that Camp Retreats bought the land specifically intending to create a camp for use by people of the Islamic faith, and has created a facility particularly suitable for that use….

The relevant inquiry is whether the property “benefit[s] … an indefinite number of persons, either by bringing their minds or hearts under the influence of … religion.” This requires a searching examination of the actual nature of the activities conducted on the land, with an eye toward evaluating “the overall nature of the institution, as opposed to its specific activities.” … Camp Retreats’ central focus is on providing the Islamic community with religious experience in a camp environment. Marathon Township admits as much; its brief in this Court asserts: “Apart from a few exceptions, all uses share the common thread of being Islamic in nature. Participants either have a personal connection to the two directors, who are both Muslim, or are tied to Muslim groups or activities.”

Given that the evidence overwhelmingly supports the religious nature of Tawheed’s activities on the property, we are hard-pressed to distinguish this case from Gull Lake Bible Conference Ass’n v. Ross Twp, 351 Mich. 269; 88 NW2d 264 (1958). In that case, the nonprofit plaintiff’s stated purpose was “[t]o promote and conduct gatherings at all seasons of the year for the study of the Bible and for inspirational and evangelistic addresses.” The plaintiff owned a “tabernacle and youth chapel” located on land exempt from ad valorem taxation. In addition, the plaintiff owned land “in close proximity” to the tabernacle and youth chapel that included a lake, “a fellowship center building, picnic area, boat docks, bath house, bathing beach, playground, and horseshoe and badminton courts.” The Supreme Court held that the additional land qualified for a charitable property tax exemption because its use “promote[d]” gathering for the study of the Bible. The Supreme Court adopted the following elaboration of the plaintiff’s charitable function:

Looking at the situation in the light of this latter purpose, it may be logically concluded that in order to obtain satisfactory attendance to its conference, plaintiff found it advisable and necessary to provide those attending with living accommodations, recreational facilities and all of the other services offered by plaintiff and made possible through the use and occupancy of the land in question by plaintiff in the manner in which they do use and occupy such land.

As in Gull Lake, the Tawheed camp’s recreational opportunities further religious purposes. Islamic worship and observance are inextricably interwoven into the camp’s daily programs. An internet description of the property introduced by Marathon Township portrayed Tawheed camps as providing “a full residence summer and winter camp experience in a beautiful setting within an Islamic environment.” Thus, the camp’s overall structure operates as a “gift” for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, by bringing their minds or hearts under the influence of religion.

I’m not an expert on the law of charitable tax exemptions, but the Michigan Court of Appeals decision seems quite right to me.

The letter, addressed to the Baltimore Police Department based on the Department’s past interference with such recording, is consistent with the Seventh Circuit’s May 8 decision in ACLU v. Alvarez (which it doesn’t cite) and the First Circuit’s decision in Glik v. Cunliffe (which it does cite, together with some other cases).

Iranian rapper Shahin Najafi … is now being dubbed the Salman Rushdie of music after two influential clerics in Iran issued fatwas — religious edicts — justifying his murder on grounds of blasphemy [based on a song in which Najafi calls on a Shiite saint, Ali an-Naqi, to save Iran] ….

Mr. Najafi … lives [in Germany] and, since last week, has been in hiding under the protection of German police….

The senior clerics empowered to issue fatwas act independently of the government — but anyone who carries out a death fatwa is granted impunity under Iranian law….

An Iranian website, Shia-Online, [has] put a $100,000 bounty on Mr. Najafi’s head ….

Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer.

The just-enacted Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-1493.04 provides, in relevant part:

B. Government shall not deny a person an appointment to public office or a position on a board, commission or committee based on the person’s exercise of religion.

C. This section is not a defense to and does not authorize any person to engage in sexual misconduct or any criminal conduct.

And “exercise of religion” is defined (in § 41-1493.01) very broadly:

“Exercise of religion” means the ability to act or refusal to act in a manner substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.

I take it that the new provision doesn’t literally mean that the government shall not deny a person an appointment or position based on the person’s ability to act in a particular way, since everybody is able to do so. It’s also possible that section C will be read not just as not authorizing criminal conduct (a meaning that’s relevant to section A, which I hope to blog about separately), but as also exempting criminal conduct from section B, though that is not section C’s literal meaning. The new law, coupled with the old, would then essentially mean:

Government shall not deny a person an appointment to public office or a position on a board, commission or committee based on the person’s … [non-criminal] [action or inaction that is] substantially motivated by a religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.

Even read this way, though, the statute would be quite remarkably broad. Government officeholders and board and commission members are often selected based on their ideological beliefs and certainly on their past actions. People who discriminate based on race or religion or sexual orientation in their companies – whether such discrimination is civilly actionable or not – might not be selected for membership on a human rights commission. Notorious advocates of the use of faith healing instead of traditional medicine might not be selected for a medical regulatory board.

Lawyers who have violated bar rules (for instance, by breaching client confidences, even for powerful moral reasons) might not be selected for membership on bar disciplinary committees. People who live in households that are essentially polygamous (but don’t try to engage in a formal polygamous marriage) might not be appointed as family court judges. [UPDATE: Likewise, people who have publicly stated that they oppose the death penalty under all circumstances might not be appointed to the Board of Executive Clemency.] The list could go on.

Yet, if taken seriously, this law would bar all such selection decisions, if the person’s discriminatory conduct, public support for faith healing, breach of client confidences, [UPDATE: public opposition to the death penalty], or polygamy were religiously motivated. Even if the appointing official is not at all motivated by the prospective appointee’s religiosity, but is focused solely on the appointee’s past conduct, the law bars discrimination even based on that conduct, so long as the appointee engaged in that conduct for religious reasons.

This seems to me to be wrong. There are good arguments for having laws that authorize presumptive exemptions for people who have religious objections (or, I think, secular conscientious objections) to generally applicable laws. But (1) those arguments are much weaker, I think, when we’re not talking about the government acting as sovereign, restricting what we do, but are talking about the government acting as employer of high-level decisionmakers. (Note that “public office” in Arizona refers not to all public employment, but to certain kinds of relatively high-level decisionmaking appointments.) And (2) they make sense only to the extent that they call for a presumptive exemption that can be overcome by a showing of sufficient government need, not a categorical exemption.

Thus, for instance, federal religious accommodation law requires employers (private and governmental) to accommodate employees’ religiously motivated behavior when such accommodation doesn’t impose “undue hardship” on the employer. State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (including such an act that has been the law in Arizona for some years) could be read as imposing similar protection, or as providing higher protection that can only be overcome by a showing that the government has a “compelling interest” in restricting its employees’ religiously motivated behavior.

But this law imposes a total bar on the consideration of religiously motivated behavior (or at least non-criminal religiously motivated behavior) by applicants for office. And it does so for the relatively high-level offices for which consideration of conduct and even speech and political belief seems most legitimate. Either the law will be enforced as written, in which case the appointing officials will be unable to exclude prospective candidates whose past conduct suggests they really should be excluded. Or the officials will find a way to indeed exclude such candidates, even when the past conduct is religiously motivated — but only by flouting the law.

Pacquiao was scheduled for an interview on Wednesday afternoon with Mario Lopez of TV’s “Extra” at The Grove in Los Angeles, but … Grove VP of corporate affairs Bill Reich … [issued a statement that] read, “Based on news reports of statements made by Mr. Pacquiao we have made it be known that he is not welcome at The Grove and will not be interviewed here now or in the future. The Grove is a gathering place for all Angelenos and not a place for intolerance[.]“

According to the CBS piece, Pacquaio — who is also a congressman in the Philippines — “told the National Conservative Examiner that he believes the Bible is very clear on the issue of homosexuality and that the President’s comments are in direct contradiction to Scripture,” saying “God’s words first”; “Obey God’s law first before considering the laws of man.” Then the writer of the article quoted the Leviticus passage stating, “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” Pacquaio now denies having quoted Leviticus on this or otherwise “stat[ing] that anyone in the gay community ‘deserved death,’” but it’s possible that the Grove VP believed that Pacquaio had indeed made such a statement.

In any event, it appears that the Grove, as a pretty large open-air shopping mall, is barred by the California Constitution, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court in Robins v. PruneYard Shopping Center (1979) and Fashion Valley Mall v. NLRB (2007), from excluding Pacquaio. The California courts have held that speech is just as protected against content-based restrictions by these large shopping mall owners as it is against content-based restrictions by the government in its role as owner of sidewalks and parks; and this is true even when the content of the speech may undermine the shopping center’s (and its tenants’) business interests (e.g., when it calls for a boycott of some of the tenants). I think that likewise the shopping center can’t restrict speech based on its moral disapproval of the speaker’s political views, or its perception that other patrons might find those views offensive.

To be sure, here the restriction is imposed based on the content and viewpoint of the speaker’s outside speech, and not necessarily the content of the likely speech in the mall. But I think that, one way or the other, the Grove’s restriction would be treated as content-based and violative of the California Constitution (though it seems unlikely that Pacquaio or his prospective interviewer will sue the Grove over this).

I say this just as a description of California law; I don’t think that the California Supreme Court’s decision in Robins was a sound interpretation of the California Constitution, and I’m pleased that only about half a dozen state courts, when I last checked, have taken a similar view of their state constitutions. Thanks to Daniel Watts for the pointer.

The “crossover sensation” line is borrowed from my coblogger John Elwood.

A Dane County judge on Thursday denied a motion to dismiss charges against a Black Earth pastor convicted of conspiracy to commit child abuse for advocating the use of wooden rods to spank children as young as 2 months old.

Philip Caminiti, 55, pastor of the Aleitheia Bible Church, was convicted in March of eight counts of conspiracy to commit child abuse for instructing church members to punish children by hitting them on the bare buttocks with wooden dowels to teach them to behave correctly, in keeping with the church’s literal interpretation of the Bible.

The motion to dismiss the charges alleged Caminiti had been deprived of his constitutional right to religious freedom.

Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi found that Caminiti had “a sincerely held religious belief” as a Christian fundamentalist that requires using a rod to discipline children beginning at a young age. But Sumi said Caminiti failed to show the state’s child abuse statute “places a burden on his sincerely held religious belief.”

“Scripture doesn’t specify how and when the rod should be used,” Sumi said, adding that Caminiti also was willing to modify the church’s practices to comply with the law….

If Caminiti had simply preached the propriety of such behavior in the abstract, I think such a conviction would likely be unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause without regard to any special religious freedom claim, given Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), even if the hitting of the children would indeed be a crime. (It probably would be; note that, according to the sheriff’s department, “the dowels were described as being 12-18 inches long with a diameter about the size of a quarter.”)

Teaching that it’s proper or even obligatory to commit a crime is generally constitutionally protected unless it’s intended to and likely to yield imminent crime, which is to say crime some time in the immediate future, likely within a few hours or at most days, and not “at some indefinite future time.” That’s why it’s not a crime to teach that it’s proper or even religiously obligatory to use marijuana, or to refuse to register for the draft, or to engage in jihad. And it sounds from news accounts that the minister’s teachings were not intended to yield such imminent conduct, but instead were meant as guidance for “some indefinite future time.”

But if Caminiti had specifically counseled particular parents about what to do with their particular children in particular contexts — “minister, my child did this-as-such; should I beat him tonight for it?” — this might qualify as either incitement of imminent criminal conduct, or as constitutionally unprotected solicitation of crime (see United States v. Williams (2008)). The line between solicitation, which is unprotected even when it calls for action in the indefinite future (e.g., “please send me some child pornography, whenever you happen to have some”) and incitement, which is protected unless it calls for imminent action, is unclear. Urging people that some general course of action is morally obligatory, without reference to a particular proposed action dealing with a particular person or a particular item, would be a classic example of material covered under Brandenburg (general advocacy) rather than Williams (solicitation). But the more specific the advocacy, the more likely it is to be seen as unprotected solicitation (or as unprotected incitement, if it’s advocacy of what the parent is to do right away).

Note that Wisconsin courts have interpreted the Wisconsin Constitution to require, in some situations, religious exemptions from generally applicable laws, under the Sherbert/Yoder regime. But it’s not clear to me that, even so, the best argument for the minister is a religious freedom argument. The protection offered by free speech law in such cases should, I think, be rather greater than the protect offered by religious exemptions law. And if the pastor’s speech is unprotected by the Free Speech Clause, I doubt that courts would find it protected even under the state constitution’s religious freedom guarantee, even using the Sherbert/Yoder test.

If anyone can point me to any reasoned opinions on the judge’s part in this case — or to more facts on the subject — I’d love to see them. All I could find myself online is the docket sheet, which doesn’t have the documents. Note that “Caminiti was not charged with having committed any abuse himself.” Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer.

The Guardian (UK) reports (see also MSNBC Cartoon Blog and other sources):

Mahmoud Shokraye was put on trial after an Iranian MP, Ahmad Lotfi Ashtiani, took offence to a cartoon he drew of the parliamentarian in Nameye Amir, a city newspaper in Arak, the capital of Iran’s central province of Markazi….

In the cartoon, Ashtiani is depicted in a football stadium, dressed as a footballer, with a congratulatory letter in one hand and his foot resting on the ball. The MP’s forehead has a dark mark, said to be the sign of a pious Shia Muslim, caused (supposedly) by frequent prostration during prayer. The cartoon contains little exaggeration and Ashtiani’s forehead has a prayer mark in reality.

Shokraye drew Ashtiani following widespread criticism in Iranian society towards a number of politicians who have been accused of interfering in the country’s sports….

Speaking to an Iranian journalist, Esmail Kowsari, a member of the parliamentary committee on national security, defended the sentence: “[A cartoonist] should be persecuted if the cartoon is not ordinary and ridicules someone … Any crime has its own punishment, including lashing, imprisonment or being fined.”

Note that “persecuted” might (or might not) be a mistranslation. Thanks to Opher Banarie for the pointer.

Last year, the Tennessee Legislature enacted a statute that essentially banned the online posting of images that cause “emotional distress” “without legitimate purpose.” As I blogged on June 6, the law made it a crime to

(4) Communicate[] with another person or transmits or displays an image in a manner in which there is a reasonable expectation that the image will be viewed by the victim by [by telephone, in writing or by electronic communication] without legitimate purpose:

(A) (i) With the malicious intent to frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress; or

(ii) In a manner the defendant knows, or reasonably should know, would frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities; and

(B) As the result of the communication, the person is frightened, intimidated or emotionally distressed.

The law therefore applied not just to one-to-one communication, but to people’s posting images on their own Facebook pages, on their Web sites, and in other places if (1) they were acting “without legitimate purpose,” (2) they caused emotional distress, and (3) they intended to cause emotional distress or knew or reasonably should have known that their action would cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities. So,

1. If you had posted a picture of someone in an embarrassing situation — not at all limited to, say, sexually themed pictures or illegally taken pictures — you’d likely have been a criminal unless the prosecutor, judge, or jury concludes that you had a “legitimate purpose.”
2. Likewise, if you had posted an image intended to distress some religious, political, ethnic, racial, etc. group, you too could have been sent to jail if a government decisionmaker thought thinks your purpose wasn’t “legitimate.” Nothing in the law required that the picture be of the “victim,” only that it be distressing to the “victim.”
3. The same would have been true even if you hadn’t intend to distress those people, but reasonably should have known that the material — say, pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group — would have “cause[d] emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities.”
4. And of course the same would have applied if a newspaper or TV station had posted embarrassing pictures or blasphemous images on its site.

After — I can’t say whether because of — the June 6 post, there was a good deal of criticism of the new law, and it looks like the Tennessee Legislature listened. Last week, it passed (unanimously in the Senate, 76-14 in the House) and sent to the Governor a bill that basically limited the statute to threats; if the Governor signs the bill, then the law would be limited to making it a crime to

(4) Communicate[] with another person or transmits or displays an image without legitimate purpose with the intent that that the image is viewed by the victim … [when the communicator]:

(A) Maliciously intends the communication to be a threat of harm to the victim; and

(B) A reasonable person would perceive the communication to be a threat of harm.

This seems to be limited to speech that fits within the “true threats” exception to First Amendment protection (at least if “harm” is reasonably interpreted as a threat of illegal physical harm or vandalism, rather than a threat of, say, boycott or social ostracism, which are generally constitutionally protected).

So it looks like public criticism of speech restrictions, even ones that seem to target supposed “bullying” or “harassment,” has worked in this instance; I’m very glad to see that. For more on the change in the law, see this TN Report article posted yesterday.

On the issue of whether the Supreme Court needs to be reformed, Dill, a civil rights lawyer with experience in the federal court system, called for major changes reminiscent of those sought by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. …

Dill said she approves of President Obama’s picks and would consider expanding the number of justices on the Court if decisions she sees as unfavorable continue to be passed down. “I think there’s promise, but if we continue to get these poor decisions, I’m not opposed to adding justices. The Constitution doesn’t say we have to have nine justices, and if these nine can’t figure it out and keep producing 5-4 decisions that are crippling our country, let’s throw a few more good justices on the Court and straighten things out.”

I should note that I see nothing inherently wrong in the political branches pushing back against the Court, whether through ordinary nominations, through constitutional amendments, or possibly even through proposals to limit the Court’s jurisdiction (though I’m skeptical about the latter). But Court-packing strikes me as a pretty poor idea: It’s nearly certain to lead to partisan tit-for-tat should this be done by one party, and the consequences of such tit-for-tat are likely to hurt the judicial system with little compensating benefit, either for Democrats or Republicans. In any case, I thought I wanted to note that such a proposal was being discussed, though of course I realize that it’s politically very unlikely to succeed.

The full article, reprinted with the editor’s permission, is below:

Candidates Go After King at Machias Democratic Senate Forum

Dill Would Alter Supreme Court; Dunlap Says Long Way to November; Pollard Wants Dems to Be More Centrist

By Will Tuell

Three Democrats seeking to replace retiring U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe, a three-term Republican who sent shockwaves through the political world this spring by abruptly withdrawing from the campaign, met at the University of Maine at Machias (UMM) May 1 to position themselves in advance of a June 12 party primary. The candidates, state Senator Cynthia Dill, former Secretary of State Matt Dunlap and small businessman Ben Pollard tackled a host of issues, including healthcare, the federal budget and the tone in Washington, but it was how Democrats were going to beat perceived frontrunner and former Independent Governor Angus King that took center stage.

“I will address the elephant in the room,” said Beals-Islander Ray Beal at the onset of the question-and-answer period. “I’m not talking about any potential Republicans, I’m talking about Angus King. In my opinion the most important issue isn’t health care, or any of the things we’re talking about here, it’s Angus King. I’d like for each of you to tell me what you’re going to do to counter Angus King.”

Pollard, a small businessman from Portland, responded by saying that King is too far to the left, that Mainers are looking for a centrist candidate, and that he considers himself to the right of King and the Democratic Party mainstream.

“I don’t believe we need to send an independent candidate to the U.S. Senate,” said Pollard. “I think we need a strong Democrat, someone who is able to reform the Democratic Party. … I think what it takes is passion, somebody different. The Democratic Party, we need to face the fact that we haven’t been appealing to the political center. We need to realign our priorities. … In many ways, I believe Governor King is more of a party-line Democrat than I am, so I think I could appeal to those independent voters with my youth and my passion.”

Dill took direct aim at King’s candidacy, saying the two-term-governor-turned-college professor and wind-energy advocate is out of touch with everyday Mainers.

“I believe that I can go toe to toe with Angus King, because he has a record and I have a record,” said the lawmaker from Cape Elizabeth. “And his record does not support working families and mine does. When he was governor, Angus King vetoed [raising] the minimum wage twice. He vetoed an amendment to the family medical leave act that would’ve given families unpaid leave to take sick children to the hospital. He spearheaded legislation that would’ve taken the most injured workers off workers’ comp, and he did everything he could to weaken unions. When he left the state for his trip across the country, he left a $1.2 billion deficit. That’s not the kind of record in my view that suggests you’ll have an advocate, a strong voice for ordinary Americans. It suggests we’ll be replacing one millionaire with another.”

Dill also took umbrage at King’s silence on which political party he’ll side with should he be elected, an issue both Republicans and Democrats have pressed the independent candidate on since King entered the race.

“On top of that, King refuses to say who he’ll caucus with. I don’t think that’s acceptable to Maine people. I think Maine people deserve to know whom their elected official is going to caucus with. … The leader of the Senate is the gatekeeper for all legislation, all confirmations and has tremendous power to appoint people to committees. If he’s going to caucus with [the Republicans] we should know that. If he’s going to caucus with Democrats, we should know that. And if he’s not going to tell us, then I want to know why. He either knows who he’s going to caucus with and he’s not going to tell us—in which case that’s not the kind of change I’m looking for in Washington—or he doesn’t know, and that concerns me even more.

“I feel I can challenge Angus King and elevate the discussion to things that matter. And hold him accountable for his record. It’s not a popularity contest. It’s about whose going to go down and have the strongest voice for Maine people and I think that person is me.”

Dunlap suggested that King’s popularity would fade as the race heats up and that he, the former Baldacci cabinet official, would be the best choice for Democrats.

“[King’s] labor record is pretty dismal if you’re someone who works for a living, making minimum wage or in a trade,” said Dunlap. “Clearly his policies were never geared toward working families in the state of Maine. You’re right, Ray, it is the elephant in the room right now.

“If the election were held today it’s plausible to assume that Angus King could pull 70 percent of the vote. People have fond memories of that time; maybe not so much of him. They’ve forgotten about his record. But the reality is, times were quite good when he was governor, and people reflect on that because we’ve had a very tough run since that time. One of his great challenges is that he’s so popular right now.

“We’ve had other forums that have been opened up to all candidates and Governor King has assiduously avoided them. It behooves him to. Why ruin a good thing by talking? The reality is that it’s a long time between now and November. He hasn’t even filed papers yet. None of us can control anything other than what we do as candidates. If I can win the nomination, the campaign I’ve got to put together is one people can rally around,” he said.

“An Independent in the United States Senate is going to be playing in the corner by himself, and they’ll let him know when he’s big and important when they need him,” said Dunlap, “so we’re not going to have the type of representation in Washington that we’re used to having. And the next seven months of debate is going to bring that out.”

Pollard Bills Self as Anti-Establishment Candidate

Pollard said that while his beliefs may be out of step with the Democratic Party line, he feels that is his biggest asset come November.

“I personally have a number of views that cross party lines,” said Pollard. “I think we’re over-regulated. I think, as a small business owner, that the regulations are very stifling to the growth of small businesses. I think we need to reduce the role of government in our lives as much as possible. I also really think the focus of government should be to provide for those most in need. [But] I also think that the Republicans have lost their way when it comes to ecological conservation.”

Pollard said that President Obama’s health-care law has turned a lot of voters off to Democratic Party politics and that while the other candidates support a provision requiring nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance by 2014, he is opposed to the “individual mandate,” a contentious issue that the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on next month.

“I have said I’m not in favor of the Affordable Care Act because I believe it’s an excessive extension of the power of federal government to mandate a product that individuals or businesses have to purchase,” he said. “But the way I would approach this question is to ask what we can do to create a more prosperous economy. I have a number of ideas on economic development, so that people can afford their own health insurance. And for those who can not, let’s have a system—and I prefer to have it administered through the states and local communities as much as possible—let’s make sure that there’s base level of preventative care.”

On the issue of federal fiscal policy, Pollard also differed from Dill and Dunlap, who he said approve of the way President Obama and Senate Democrats are handling the budget. Pollard said that in his view, both sides are to blame for the impasse and it is adversely impacting the economy.

“I believe that the federal budget deficit is a serious problem. Bigger than the fiscal picture is the political picture, the lack of cooperation that has troubled markets and investors deeply. I think last summer’s loss of our AAA credit rating was a sign of how bad things have gotten in Washington, D.C,” he said, adding that he favors a combination of spending cuts and tax increases.

“I would lean toward about 75 percent spending cuts and 25 percent tax increases. As to where I would suggest cutting spending, the first, lowest hanging fruit are the subsidies to the fossil fuel industries, nuclear power, as well as industrial agriculture.”

Dill Would Alter the Supreme Court

The candidates shared views on as education, the environment and civil rights. On the issue of whether the Supreme Court needs to be reformed, Dill, a civil rights lawyer with experience in the federal court system, called for major changes reminiscent of those sought by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

“I believe that there should be some reforms to the Supreme Court,” she said. “I worked for Common Cause last year, and they are supporting an effort to have an ethics code applied to the Supreme Court because of some breaches of principles by certain justices such as Justice [Clarence] Thomas,” said Dill.

Dill said she approves of President Obama’s picks and would consider expanding the number of justices on the Court if decisions she sees as unfavorable continue to be passed down. “I think there’s promise, but if we continue to get these poor decisions, I’m not opposed to adding justices. The Constitution doesn’t say we have to have nine justices, and if these nine can’t figure it out and keep producing 5-4 decisions that are crippling our country, let’s throw a few more good justices on the Court and straighten things out.”

Dill, Dunlap and Pollard are joined on the June primary ballot by state Rep. John Hinck, a Portland trial lawyer who was unable to attend the forum due to a conflict with his court schedule. The June 12 primary winner will square off against King and one of six Republicans seeking their party’s nomination. UMM will feature a Republican forum May 11 at the college’s Performing Arts Center.

1. “Rashad Richey, the person in charge of making political decisions for Georgia Democratic Party, has a history of making poor personal decisions.”
2. “The money raised from this event will help keep Rashad Richey the Recidivist on the Democratic payroll for a long time.”
3. “We now know what Ali Rashad Richie used all that cash for … Bail money.”
4. “So, a criminal is in charge of directing Democratic politics across Georgia.”
5. “Ali Rashad Richie, political director for Georgia’s Democratic Party is a jail bird. Rashad Richie is a recidivist.”

The complaint seems to be arguing that this is false because “recidivist” means someone who has committed more than one felony, and “Plaintiff is not a convicted Felon.”

But WSB-TV reports that, “Richey had a series of misdemeanor convictions for criminal trespass and simple battery. Channel 2 Action News has now learned Richey also had a felony conviction for aggravated assault in 1998 but was sentenced as a first-time offender. When he completed his sentence, the felony was wiped from his record.” GPB News reports that Richey’s “attorneys confirm that Richey has been arrested for a variety of misdemeanor charges, including driving with a revoked license, battery, obstructing an officer and family violence.” (Note that this is confirmation of the arrest record, and not of a conviction record, but the WSB-TV story states there was a conviction record, and nothing in the GPB News story denies that.) A quick criminal history search of my own revealed Richey’s aggravated assault conviction, and another site posts a 2007 arrest report based on a separate incident. Nor have I seen any indication that WSB-TV is mistaken about the series of misdemeanor convictions.

So Richey’s only argument seems to be that calling someone with several misdemeanor conviction and one felony conviction that was expunged (just because it was a first offense, and not on the grounds that Richey had been exonerated) a “recidivist” is recklessly or knowingly false because “recidivist” is reserved for people with multiple felony convictions. But I don’t think that the term is limited to felonies in ordinary language, and I don’t think reasonable readers of the blog would have so understood the word; rather, a typical lay reader would likely see it as simply accusation of multiple criminal offenses — an accusation that appears to be true.

I should note that if the statement “[w]e now know what Ali Rashad Richie used all that cash for … Bail money” would have reasonably been seen as a charge of embezzlement of funds, that might be libelous. But I didn’t see any reference to that in the Complaint, which suggests that in context it was likely seen just as a dig at his criminal record, rather than a serious accusation of misappropriation of funds.

Oh, and according to WSB-TV, “Richey’s attorneys believe the series of blogs are borderline harassment and constitute a form of cyberbullying.”

The ultimate task for the people is to remain vigilant and aware ~ that the government, their government is out of control, and this moment, this opportunity, must not be forsaken, must not escape us, for we shall not have any coarse but armed revolution should we fail with the power of the vote in November ~ This Republic cannot survive for 4 more years underneath this political socialist ideologue.

A truly appalling call for violence, and a truly appalling repudiation of basic American democratic principles. The author seems willing to start a bloody war with his fellow Americans, a war that he’s certain to lose — since by hypothesis he’d be fighting against the majority who reelect the President, coupled with the armed forces who would doubtless follow the lawful orders to suppress any such revolution — and that, if seriously prosecuted, would costs the lives of a vast number of his fellow citizens.

And why? Because, by hypothesis, President Obama has been reelected? If you don’t like who gets elected, persuade your fellow Americans so they elect your party instead of the other (as in fact they have in most elections over the past 35 years). Or persuade them to elect your party to one or both Houses of Congress, to counteract the President’s power (which in fact happened just two years before). That’s the American way.

Yes, I agree that in some circumstances armed revolution can be justified. But the likely costs of such revolution in a country such as the modern U.S. range from the horrific to the catastrophic. Partly because of this, it is very rare for armed revolution to be justifiable — even under circumstances that are much more extreme than the ones we face now — in a democracy where peaceful means (winning elections) are available. And in any event, all that bloodshed can’t be justifiable if it’s likely to be futile, as it certainly would be, and if it’s over policy differences that, important as they might be, cannot warrant bloody civil war.

I realize that this author is just an editor of a county party newsletter. And I quite doubt that more than a few Greene County Republicans really believe this nonsense. (The newsletter says, “Content of newsletter does not reflect the opinion of the Republican Party whole or in part, all contents offered are individual,” and in this instance I’m sure it’s true.) But I’ve heard enough people say variants of something like this that I wanted to speak out publicly about it. And I certainly hope that the Greene County Republican Party Committee does the same, and makes sure that such calls for violence don’t appear in its publications again.

UPDATE: Commenter redheadedbuddha reports that the site now says — apparently referring to the controversy —

~ all this rip roar Media hype….. is all about…..being armed with the voices of We the people…..you must arm yourself with a spoken word to be heard ~ just as the founding fathers spoke out during the revolution……So, Yes, arm yourself with many voices for the people and by the people….as your constitution allows….should the vote fail ….this November or at anytime……

~ Being Armed with Your Voices of We The People is The Only Way if Any Vote Should Fail No Matter Who You Vote for ~

” your voice being heard is the best method “

Yeah, that’s what “armed revolution” means — armed with words, “just as the founding fathers spoke out during the revolution.” Right.

Once, the leading sources to which people turned for useful information were newspapers, guidebooks, and encyclopedias. Today, these sources also include search engine results, which people use (along with other sources) to learn about news, local institutions, products, services, and many other matters. Then and now, the First Amendment has protected all these forms of speech from government attempts to regulate what they present or how they present it. And this First Amendment protection has applied even when the regulations were motivated by a concern about what some people see as “fairness.”

Google, Microsoft’s Bing, Yahoo! Search, and other search engines are speakers. First, they sometimes convey information that the search engine company has itself prepared or compiled (such as information about places appearing in Google Places). Second, they direct users to material created by others, by referencing the titles of Web pages that the search engines judge to be most responsive to the query, coupled with short excerpts from each page. Such reporting about others’ speech is itself constitutionally protected speech.

Third, and most valuably, search engines select and sort the results in a way that is aimed at giving users what the search engine companies see as the most helpful and useful information. (That is how each search engine company tries to keep users coming back to it rather than to its competitors.) This selection and sorting is a mix of science and art: It uses sophisticated computerized algorithms, but those algorithms themselves inherently incorporate the search engine company engineers’ judgments about what material users are most likely to find responsive to their queries.

In this respect, each search engine’s editorial judgment is much like many other familiar editorial judgments:

• newspapers’ daily judgments about which wire service stories to run, and whether they are to go “above the fold”;
• newspapers’ periodic judgments about which op-ed columnists, lifestyle columnists, business columnists, or consumer product columnists are worth carrying regularly, and where their columns are to be placed;
• guidebooks’ judgments about which local attractions, museums, stores, and restaurants to mention, and how prominently to mention them;
• the judgment of sites such as DrudgeReport.com about which stories to link to, and in what order to list them.

All these speakers must decide: Out of the thousands of possible items that could be included, which to include, and how to arrange those that are included? Such editorial judgments may differ in certain ways: For example, a newspaper also includes the materials that its editors have selected and arranged, while the speech of DrudgeReport.com or a search engine consists almost entirely of the selected and arranged links to others’ material. But the judgments are all, at their core, editorial judgments about what users are likely to find interesting and valuable. And all these exercises of editorial judgment are fully protected by the First Amendment.

That is so even when a newspaper simply makes the judgment to cover some particular subject matter: For instance, when many newspapers published TV listings, they were free to choose to do so without regard to whether this choice undermined the market for TV Guide. Likewise, search engines are free to include and highlight their own listings of (for example) local review pages even though Yelp might prefer that the search engines instead rank Yelp’s information higher. And this First Amendment protection is even more clearly present when a speaker, such as Google, makes not just the one include-or-not editorial judgment, but rather many judgments about how to design the algorithms that produce and rank search results that — in Google’s opinion — are likely to be most useful to users.

Of course, search engines produce and deliver their speech through a different technology than that traditionally used for newspapers and books. The information has become much easier for readers to access, much more customized to the user’s interests, and much easier for readers to act on. The speech is thus now even more valuable to customers than it was before. But the freedom to distribute, select, and arrange such speech remains the same.

We will discuss this in detail below, both as to the First Amendment generally (Part III) and as to the intersection of First Amendment law and antitrust law (Part IV). We focus in this submission on Google search results for which no payment has been made to Google, because they have been the subject of recent debates; we do not discuss, for instance, the ads that Google often displays at the top or on the right-hand side of the search results page.