Pico Plurality and the Right to Receive Speech

[guayiya]

It is unfortunate that the caselaw does not consistently and robustly 
support a right to receive speech.
The right to speak is packaged with other FA rights, making it clear 
that potentially consequential speech is the core value.
A right to speak, but only into a void that has no possible audience, 
would not advance that value.
Obviously, a right to submit messages but only to a government site, 
which then had total discretion about which messages to transmit, would 
be a paradigm case of prior restraint.
These remarks leave many issues unresolved, but I think they foreclose 
the claim that there is no right to receive speech.
Any governmental restrictions on the right to receive speech must 
narrowly further a compelling public interest.
Daniel Hoffman

Tepker, Rick wrote:

> A few years ago I checked how often Pico was used as a basis for 
> decisions.  It did not appear to be influential.  And, I think, for 
> good reason.
>
>  
>
> It is probably dented or even eclipsed by the American Library Assn 
> case upholding a federal requirement of internet software filters for 
> public libraries. There was no visible sign of a 'right to receive 
> information' in that case.
>
>  
>
> Rick Tepker
>
> Calvert Chair of Law and Liberty
>
>   & Professor of Law
>
> University of Oklahoma
>
> Norman, Oklahoma 73019
>
> 405.325.4832
>
> rtepker at ou.edu
>
>  
>
> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 1:36 PM
> To: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: RE: Pico Plurality and the Right to Receive Speech
>
>  
>
> A tangential question:  Is the Brennan et al. opinion in Pico even 
> properly seen as the "plurality," given that it got the same number of 
> votes as the dissenting opinion, and the swing vote - Justice White's 
> - expressed no view on the underlying First Amendment question (and in 
> fact noted that the question might never need to be reached, depending 
> on the outcome of proceedings below)?
>
>  
>
> Back from the tangent:  Even if the Brennan et al. opinion is right, 
> which I doubt, I can't see how it could be applicable to curriculum 
> decisions (didn't it expressly distinguish those?) or to material that 
> the school puts up as its own speech. 
>
>  
>
> Eugene
>
>  
>
> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Rick Duncan
> Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:20 AM
> To: CONLAWPROF at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Pico Plurality and the Right to Receive Speech
>
>  
>
> Does anyone think that the Pico plurality got the free speech issue 
> right when it stated that for a public school to remove books from the 
> school library, because the books offended conservative parents who 
> disagreed with the ideas expressed in the books, violated the right of 
> willing students to receive the ideas expressed in the books? Does 
> this right extend beyond removal of library books?
>
> Here is an example we discussed in my 1A class this summer.
>
> Suppose a public school puts up a "Gay Pride" display in the main 
> hallway for the month of April to promote tolerance and equality. Some 
> conservative students and their parents are offended by the display 
> and complain to school authorities. If school authorities remove the 
> display early to appease the complaining families, does this violate 
> the Free Speech Clause and non-offended students' right to receive the 
> ideas expressed in the display? Do those who make up the willing 
> audience for the display have a right to receive the ideas which is 
> violated when the school removes the display to appease the interests 
> of those who dislike the ideas expressed? Or is this merely a case of 
> government speech where the government may put up or take down the 
> display for any reason, including to appease the offended families?
>
> Rick Duncan
> Welpton Professor of Law
> University of Nebraska College of Law
> Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
>
> "And against the constitution I have never raised a storm,It's the 
> scoundrels who've corrupted it that I want to reform" --Dick Gaughan 
> (from the song, Thomas Muir of Huntershill)
>
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20090626/87b70ca8/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: guayiya.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 143 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20090626/87b70ca8/attachment.vcf>