On Point: 19. First Amendment

Kindschy v. Aish, 2024 WI 27, 6/27/24, reversing a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

SCOW finds injunction against abortion clinic protestor violated First Amendment.

Counterman v. Colorado, USSC No. 22-183, 6/27/2023; Scotusblog page (with links to briefs and commentary)

In a case with possible implications for Wisconsin law, SCOTUS holds that in a criminal prosecution involving “true threats,” the State must prove the person “consciously disregarded a substantial risk that his communications would be viewed as threatening violence.”

Counterman v. Colorado, USSC No. 22-138; cert. granted 1/13/23; reversed 6/27/23 Scotusblog page (containing links to briefs and commentary)

Question presented:

Whether, to establish that a statement is a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough to show that an objective “reasonable person” would regard the statement as a threat of violence.

Nancy Kindschy v. Brian Aish, 2020AP1775, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision granted 6/22/22; case activity (including briefs), reversed 6/27/24

Issues (from the petition for review):

Whether Wis. Stat. §813.125, as construed by the Court of Appeals to prohibit speech from a public sidewalk intended to persuade listeners to cease their sinful conduct (participation in abortion) and repent immediately before something bad happens and they no longer have time to repent, violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Art. I, §3 of the Wisconsin Constitution?

Whether speech from a public sidewalk intended to persuade listeners, even if directed to a specific listener, to cease sinful conduct (participation in abortion) and repent immediately before something bad happens and there is no longer time to repent serves “no legitimate purpose” within the meaning of Wis. Stat. §813.125?

Whether enjoining, for a period of four years, a longtime pro-life, anti-Planned Parenthood protestor from protesting on a public sidewalk in front of a Planned Parenthood during its business hours because he made comments urging a Planned Parenthood worker to repent before something bad happens and there was no more time to repent, constitutes an unconstitutional restraint on First Amendment protected expression?

State v. C.G., 2022 WI 60, 7/7/22, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2018AP2205; case activity

C.G. has the masculine legal name her parents gave her when she was born. When she was 15 years old she committed a sexual assault. At the time she was identifying as a male, but during and after the pendency of her juvenile case she began to transition to female. She wants to change her legal name to reflect her gender. But in Wisconsin, those on the registry are forbidden to change their names. C.G.–who is primarily identified by the pseudonym “Ella” in this confidential juvenile case–argued that forcing her to retain a masculine legal name violates her First Amendment right to free speech, and her Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Four justices disagree.

Town of Brookfield v. Martin M. Gonzalez, 2021AP218, District 2, 10/27/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Gonzalez posted some photos on Instagram as a “story,” a series of shorter, more casual, less permanent images or posts than standard posts on a user’s Instagram feed (so we’re told). The first photo showed a ticket to an upcoming movie at a Brookfield cinema. The second showed loose bullets and a hand holding a loaded magazine. The third showed the inside of a darkened movie theater. (¶3). This “story” led to Gonzalez being convicted for violating the municipality’s disorderly conduct ordinance, a conviction the court of appeals now vacates.

State v. Aaron Matthew Oleston, 2020AP952-CR, District 4, 7/15/21 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Olseston was charged with five counts of disorderly conduct for “hurling profanities and personal insults” (¶14) at Janesville police officers as they came and left the police station, as well as filming some of the encounters. Three of the five counts can’t be prosecuted because Oleston’s conduct was protected by the First Amendment; the other two can be, because they went beyond protected speech.

State v. C.G., 2018AP2205, review granted 4/27/21; case activity

Issues presented:

Does Wis. Stat. § 301.45, the statute governing juvenile sex offender registration, unconstitutionally infringe on Ella’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech by preventing her from legally changing her name to reflect her gender identity?

Does requiring Ella to register under Wis. Stat. § 301.45 amount to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?

State v. C.G., 2021 WI App 11; petition for review granted 4/27; case activity

Ella–a pseudonym–was adjudicated delinquent for a sexual assault committed when she was 15. Ella’s legal name is masculine in association; during her juvenile disposition she was transitioning to a female identity. In this appeal she challenges the circuit court’s refusal to stay sex offender registration under Cesar G., and also submits that the registry’s prohibition on changing her legal name violates her First Amendment right to express her identity. The court of appeals upholds the circuit court’s discretionary decision on the former claim; on the latter it offers three blithe paragraphs of discussion before casually announcing–in a decision that is set to be published, and thus binding–that requiring a transgender woman to use a man’s name implicates no First Amendment concerns whatsoever.

State v. Peter J. King, 2020 WI App 66;  case activity (including briefs)

Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S Ct. 1730 (2017) struck down a law making it a felony for a registered sex offender to use any social networking site that permits minors to become members or to create personal web page. The statute was so broad that it violated the 1st Amendment. See our post here. In this case, the court of appeals holds that Packingham’s reasoning does not apply to court-ordered conditions of extended supervision that sharply restrict a defendant’s access to the internet.