McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

rdf:langString McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

rdf:langString

rdf:langString Joseph McIntyre, executor of Estate of Margaret McIntyre, deceased, petitioner v. Ohio Elections Commission, et al.

rdf:langString McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

rdf:langString Scalia

rdf:langString Rehnquist

rdf:langString O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

rdf:langString right

rdf:langString Justice John Paul Stevens

rdf:langString McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission,

rdf:langString Joseph McIntyre, executor of Estate of Margaret McIntyre, deceased, petitioner v. Ohio Elections Commission, et al.

rdf:langString Ohio's prohibition of the distribution of anonymous campaign literature abridges the freedom of speech in violation of the First Amendment.

rdf:langString McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission

rdf:langString Stevens

rdf:langString Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.

rdf:langString McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 at 357 .

rdf:langString McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an Ohio statute prohibiting anonymous campaign literature is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects the freedom of speech. In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court found that the First Amendment protects the decision of an author to remain anonymous. On April 27, 1988, Margaret McIntyre stood outside of a middle school in Westerville, Ohio, and passed out anonymous leaflets that opposed a proposed school district tax levy. The Ohio Elections Commission fined McIntyre $100 for violating a state law that prohibited the distribution of any kind of political or campaign literature that does not have the name and address of the person responsible for its contents. With the help of the American Civil Liberties Union, McIntyre appealed the fine in court. The county court reversed the fine, holding that because McIntyre did not attempt to mislead the public, the Ohio statute was unconstitutional as it applied to her actions. However, the state court of appeals reinstated the fine, referring to a 1922 decision by the Ohio Supreme Court as precedent, and the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ohio Supreme Court on April 19, 1995. As precedent, the Court referred to its decision in Talley v. California (1960), in which the Court found a similar law prohibiting anonymous leafletting unconstitutional, as well as the role of anonymous political literature throughout history, one example being The Federalist Papers. The Court's majority opinion emphasized the importance of anonymous speech, describing it as "not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent". The effect of the Court's opinion on anonymous speech has been analyzed in the contexts of television and radio advertisements, campaign finance, and the Internet.

rdf:langString Thomas

rdf:langString Ginsburg