Thursday, January 08, 2004
You can't find the california costitution's bill of rights by googling for california constitution bill of rights speech. But I found soemthing better - a discussion of when you can get or not get damages for violation of a state con right of free speech. Not in CA, but the case should link to other cases or have clues.
http://www.nsclc.org/federalrights/calconst123102.html
In Katzberg v. The Regents of the University of California, the California Supreme Court held that there was no implied private right of action to sue in damages for a violation of the due process clause of the California Constitution. 127 Cal. Rptr. 480 (2002). In DeGrassi v. Cook, 127 Cal. Rptr 508 (2002), it reached the same result in a damage action for violation of plaintiff's right to free speech under the State Constitution.
These cases are new enough I hadn't seen them before. Off to google for degrassi v cook.
related case -degrassi isn't very likeable, and raised some frivolous claims in related federal action, may have affected the court's approach.
Grr! since when do you need to register to view cases at findlaw? since they got bought by west or somebody evil? grr.
So the case does exist but i can't find it online, and am 10 miles from a law library. Ah here it is.
Full circle, the case contains the state free speech provision I was looking for:"Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press." (Ibid.)
Ok, bad example - that one, from California, where Eugene is, is not textually strong.
Let's compare, say, Illinois. Off for more googling.
SECTION 5. RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION
The people have the right to assemble in a peaceable
manner, to consult for the common good, to make known their
opinions to their representatives and to apply for redress of
grievances.
No weasel words there; it seems textually strong. The illinois speech clause, section 4, is weak but section 5 looks good.
Back to Degrassi: the california court declined to allow damages in her case, but did not forclose the issue of damages in a case with better facts and equities - degrassi was a somewhat frivolous plaintiff.
So the issue remains open. Unfortunately, the case did not list cases from other jurisdictions.
http://www.nsclc.org/federalrights/calconst123102.html
In Katzberg v. The Regents of the University of California, the California Supreme Court held that there was no implied private right of action to sue in damages for a violation of the due process clause of the California Constitution. 127 Cal. Rptr. 480 (2002). In DeGrassi v. Cook, 127 Cal. Rptr 508 (2002), it reached the same result in a damage action for violation of plaintiff's right to free speech under the State Constitution.
These cases are new enough I hadn't seen them before. Off to google for degrassi v cook.
related case -degrassi isn't very likeable, and raised some frivolous claims in related federal action, may have affected the court's approach.
Grr! since when do you need to register to view cases at findlaw? since they got bought by west or somebody evil? grr.
So the case does exist but i can't find it online, and am 10 miles from a law library. Ah here it is.
Full circle, the case contains the state free speech provision I was looking for:"Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press." (Ibid.)
Ok, bad example - that one, from California, where Eugene is, is not textually strong.
Let's compare, say, Illinois. Off for more googling.
SECTION 5. RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION
The people have the right to assemble in a peaceable
manner, to consult for the common good, to make known their
opinions to their representatives and to apply for redress of
grievances.
No weasel words there; it seems textually strong. The illinois speech clause, section 4, is weak but section 5 looks good.
Back to Degrassi: the california court declined to allow damages in her case, but did not forclose the issue of damages in a case with better facts and equities - degrassi was a somewhat frivolous plaintiff.
So the issue remains open. Unfortunately, the case did not list cases from other jurisdictions.
Comments:
Post a Comment
