Defamation / Reputation, Hate Speech, Political Expression
Awan v. Levant
REGISTER NOW: Join us on October 3 & 4 for the “Regulating the Online Public Sphere: From Decentralized Networks to Public Regulation” conference
Closed Expands Expression
Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:
Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.
The U.S. Supreme Court found a municipal ordinance that requires one to obtain a permit prior to engaging in door-to-door advocacy, invalid under the First Amendment. The petitioners, Watchtower Bible, challenged the constitutionality of a Stratton ordinance that made it a misdemeanor to canvas door-to-door without prior registration and receipt of a permit from the Office of the Mayor. The Court reasoned that the ordinance prohibited an individual from speaking anonymously and that it banned “spontaneous speech”. Ultimately, the Court noted that the ordinance over-regulated various types of speech, and thus was “offensive” to the values enshrined in the First Amendment.
Watchtower Bible and the other petitioners were religious organizations who preached about their activities and faith, and distributed religious materials for free. They did not ask for money for their publications, but they accepted donations. The Village of Stratton enacted an ordinance that regulated peddling and solicitation on private property. The ordinance required canvassers and individuals going on private, residential property with the purpose to promote a cause to first obtain a permit from the office of the mayor. The permit was free, and the ordinance required the canvasser to carry the permit and display it to a police officer upon request. Watchtower Bible did not obtain a permit before going on private, residential property, claiming that they had authority to preach from their religion.
The district court upheld most parts of the ordinance, finding that the regulations were content-neutral under the First Amendment. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that the ordinance was content-neutral. It rejected Watchtower Bible’s claims that the ordinances violated their right to freedom of religion and speech.
On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the question, “Does a municipal ordinance that requires one to obtain a permit prior to engaging in the door-to-door advocacy of a political cause and to display upon demand the permit, which contains one’s name, violate the First Amendment protection accorded to anonymous pamphleteering or discourse?”
Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The U.S. Supreme Court found the ordinance “offensive” to the values protected by the First Amendment and the right to public discourse. [p.165]. The Court was concerned about the breadth of the ordinance: how much speech was covered and how, because of this, a citizen would be required to first inform the government before engaging in everyday public discourse.
The Court reviewed the constitutionality of the ordinance with regards to distributing handbills (e.g. newsletters, informational pamphlets). The Court was concerned about the requirement that a canvasser must be identified in the permit application, and that their information would be available for public inspection. The Court was concerned that this requirement prohibited an individual from speaking anonymously, and recognized that citizens must be able to retain this right. The Court was also concerned about the amount of “spontaneous speech” that was banned by the ordinance. [p.167] Specifically, the Court used the example of a person who decided last minute to take part in a political campaign that would be prohibited from doing so until he or she obtained the permit. The Court’s primary concern was about the breadth of the ordinance—meaning all the different types of speech that were being overly regulated by the ordinance.
Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.
The Court’s opinion set clear guidelines for canvassers and door-to-door advocacy. This expands expression because the Court recognized the importance of everyday discourse between citizens, whether it be through distributing informational pamphlets or speaking with neighbors about a certain position.
The opinion is noteworthy because it recognizes the right to speak freely amongst others anonymously. Additionally, it is noteworthy because it analyzes First Amendment rights in the context of private property, as opposed to those in a public forum, such as a sidewalk.
Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.
The opinion did not cite any international/regional laws or cases, or other national laws or cases.
Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.
All state and federal courts in the United States are required to follow the Court’s holding.
Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.