Expert: Michael Troy - 4/6/2004

Question
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION? WOULD YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW ANY CASES THAT DEALS WITH 1ST AMMENDEMENT ? SOMETHING DEALING WITH TEACHER'S UNION VS A CITY LAW THAT VIOLATES THEIR RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION..?
Answer -
Hi Tasha,

I could probably give a better answer if I knew what the law said and what the teacher's union was trying to do.  First Amendment law can get rather complicated when speech and action are intermingled.
If you can provide additional info, I'm happy to help.

Othewise, this site may be of some help to you:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/

- Mike



________________________________   _____________________________

THE TOPIC  WAS A CITY OF  GOTHAM ..THE LAW PROHIBITS THE DISTRUBUTION OF PAMPLETS AND USE OF LOUD SPEAKERS OR MEGAPHONES ON STREET CORNERS WITHIN 1000 FT OF ANY PUBLIC SCHOOL BETWEEN 7A-9A /2P-5P .THE STATE CITED PUBLIC SAFETY REASONS FOR THE LAW WAS INTIALLY PASSSED IN RESPONSE TO CONCERNS THAT THESE "DISTRACTION" 1- IMPEDED SAFE TRAFFIC FLOW AND PEDESESTRIAN CROSSING DURIN SCHOOL OPENING AND CLOSING HRS, 2- WERE RUMORED TO BE OPPRTUNITIES FOR DRUG DEALINGS AMONG STUDENTS ..
THIS LAW HAD BIG AFFECTFED THE TEACHER'S UNION , WHICH THEY WOULD LIKE TO DEMONSTRATE IN FRONT OF THE SCHOOL ON OPENING AND  CLOSING HRS TO GET ATTENTION OF PARENTS. SOME MEMBERS OF THE UNION WERE CITED $1000 EACH MINIMUM UNDER THE GOTHAM'S LAW FOR  PASSIN OUT LEAFLETS , MEGAPHONING AND CHANTIN SLOGANS. NOW THE TESCHERS UNION ARE APPEALING  THESE FINES IN  THE APPEALS  i.e CONNECTICUTS COURT ..THEIR ARGUMENT IS THAT THE LAW VIOLATES THEIR 1ST AMMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREE EXPRESSION..

MY JOB DEALING WITH THIS TYPE OF EXAMPLE CASE BY THE PROFESSOR IS TO PERSUADE THE COURT APPEALS TO RULE IN MY CLIENT'S FAVOR , AND ABLE TO POINT TO SUPREME COURT OPINIONS SUPPORTING MY VIEWS..
I HOPE YOU CAN HELP ME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THIS CASE
THANK YOU  

Answer
Hi again,

Leafleting is generally protected speech.  However, goverments may put in place content-neutal time, place, and manner restrictions in order to protect legitimate interests (such as traffic flow, etc.).  The questions in your example are 1. whether the stated reasons are true and not a cover to prevent speech, 2. whether the restrictions on the Union are the least restrictive possible, and 3. whether the union has adequate opportunity to get its message out with the restrictions in place.

The following cases will probably be of interest in answering these questions:

US v. Kokinda (1990)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=497&pag

Heffron v. ISKCON (1981)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=452&pag

Police Dept. v. Mosley (1972)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=408&inv

Carey v. Brown (1980)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=447&inv

- Mike