From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 1997 12:19:33 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: More Supreme Court CDA predictions (fwd)
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970625210454.11551E-100000@well.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain





---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 21:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: More Supreme Court CDA predictions

[Probably the Supreme Court's last free speech decision before the CDA
came down today in Glickman v. Wileman Brothers. I'm still reading through
the opinion, but as I understand the case, U.S. Agriculture Department
regulations required nectarine and peach growers in California to
contribute to generic pro-nectarine/peach advertising. The Ninth Circuit
struck down the regs, saying the "First Amendment right of freedom of
speech includes a right not to be compelled to render financial support
for others' speech." But today the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that
"Respondents are not required themselves to speak but are merely required
to make contributions for advertising." Souter, Rhenquist, Scalia, and
Thomas dissented. This is hardly a decision that bodes well for the First
Amendment. --Declan]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 97 19:15:00 DST
From: "Halpert, James - DC" <jhalpert@pipermar.com>


Declan,

One never knows until the opinions are issued, but there is a good deal of
objective evidence contradicting Prof. Volokh's hunch.  At oral argument,
Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas all asked hostile questions of Bruce Ennis,
and Rhenquist and Scalia stepped in to help out Seth Waxman, the
Government's oralist, when he was having trouble answering tough questions. 

I'm not sure that Rhenquist and Thomas have ever voted to strike down an
indecency restriction.  Although Scalia has been taken somewhat more
libertarian stands on speech restrictions than the other two, he said flat
out at oral argument that he thought the government should win. 

As for the dissenting opinion they all joined Denver Consortium decision
last term, it may have drawn a clearer line than did the plurality
opinion, but would have upheld a requirement that cable subscribers OPT-IN
IN WRITING thirty days in advance of being able to receive indecent
programming.  If you like that, you may well like the CDA .. . .  We'll
see soon enough.