Free Speech, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 22, 2024, 02:11:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  Free Speech, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: The ruling was...
#1
Constitutionally sound
 
#2
Constitutionally unsound
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 1

Author Topic: Free Speech, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission  (Read 1210 times)
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: November 10, 2005, 11:26:49 PM »

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995)

After petitioner's decedent distributed leaflets purporting to express the views of "CONCERNED PARENTS AND TAX PAYERS" opposing a proposed school tax levy, she was fined by respondent for violating 3599.09(A) of the Ohio Code, which prohibits the distribution of campaign literature that does not contain the name and address of the person or campaign official issuing the literature. The Court of Common Pleas reversed, but the Ohio Court of Appeals reinstated the fine. In affirming, the State Supreme Court held that the burdens 3599.09(A) imposed on voters' First Amendment rights were "reasonable and "nondiscriminatory" and therefore valid. Declaring that 3599.09(A) is intended to identify persons who distribute campaign materials containing fraud, libel, or false advertising and to provide voters with a mechanism for evaluating such materials, the court distinguished Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 , in which this Court invalidated an ordinance prohibiting all anonymous leafletting.

Held: Section 3599.09(A)'s prohibition of the distribution of anonymous campaign literature abridges the freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment.

STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which REHNQUIST, C. J., joined.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: November 11, 2005, 07:50:58 AM »

The Ohio law violates both the free speech clause and the free press clause. I would agree with Justice Thomas' analysis.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.205 seconds with 15 queries.