USCON AM-0001- ANNOTATIONS

Statute which would include newspapers within definition of public utility and subject them to PUC jurisdiction would be violative of freedom of the press. Att. Gen. Op. 74-11.

Licensing of church-sponsored day care programs constitutional. Att. Gen. Op. 85-25.

Section 445-112(11), regulating political signs, was unconstitutional and unenforceable. Att. Gen. Op. 96-4.

Section 452-23(a)(4), (5), and (6) was overly broad and infringed upon commercial speech rights afforded by First Amendment. Att. Gen. Op. 98-2.

Section 11-204(b): violates First Amendment because it restricts persons or other entities from making contributions to noncandidate ballot measure committees. Section 11-204(j): statutory provision prohibits contributions based upon length of time that noncandidate committee has been registered; this durational requirement is unconstitutional because it imposes limitations on the right of association and the right of expression when contributions are made to noncandidate committees. Att. Gen. Op. 98-5.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, in which the U.S. Supreme Court held that an Ohio school voucher program did not violate the establishment clause, was inapposite in Hawaii; a publicly-funded Hawaii school voucher program would violate article X, §1 of the state constitution. Att. Gen. Op. 03-1.

The Decision to Disobey: A View of Symbolic Civil Disobedience. 7 HBJ 5.

The Dissenting Cop. 9 HBJ 59.

The Power of the Courts to Protect Journalists' Confidential Sources of Information: An Examination of Proposed Shield Legislation. 11 HBJ 35.

Cameras In Court-Focusing In On Constitutional Problems. 15 HBJ 83.

Estes v. Kapiolani Women's and Children's Medical Center: State Action and the Balance Between Free Speech and Private Property Rights in Hawaii. 13 UH L. Rev. 233.

The Lum Court, Land Use, and the Environment: A Survey of Hawai`i Case Law 1983 to 1991. 14 UH L. Rev. 119.

The Protection of Individual Rights Under Hawai`i's Constitution. 14 UH L. Rev. 311.

The Lum Court and Native Hawaiian Rights. 14 UH L. Rev. 377.

The Lum Court and the First Amendment. 14 UH L. Rev. 395.

Burdick v. Takushi: Yes to Equal Voice in Voting, No to a Fundamental Right to Vote for Any Particular Candidate. 14 UH L. Rev. 715.

The Law and Politics of Dancing: Barnes v. Glen Theatre and the Regulation of Striptease Dance. 14 UH L. Rev. 925.

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah: Reaffirming the Supreme Court's Religious Free Exercise Jurisdiction. 16 UH L. Rev. 401.

Curing A Bad Reputation: Reforming Defamation Law. 17 UH L. Rev. 113.

Non-Profit Peddling in Waikiki: To Permit or Not to Permit? 17 UH L. Rev. 539.

Son of Simon & Schuster: A "True Crime" Story of Motive, Opportunity and the First Amendment. 18 UH L. Rev. 201.

Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of University of Virginia and the Equal Access Rights of Religious People. 18 UH L. Rev. 339.

Confidentiality Breeds Contempt: A First Amendment Challenge to Confidential Ethics Commission Proceedings of the City & County of Honolulu. 18 UH L. Rev. 797.

The Inherent Hostility of Secular Public Education Toward Religion: Why Parental Choice Best Serves the Core Values of the Religion Clauses. 19 UH L. Rev. 697.

The Jurisprudence of Justice Scalia: A Critical Appraisal. 22 UH L. Rev. 385.

The Primacy of Political Actors in Accommodation of Religion. 22 UH L. Rev. 403.

Justice Scalia and the Religion Clauses. 22 UH L. Rev. 449.

Full and Equal Rights of Conscience. 22 UH L. Rev. 469.

Transcript of the University of Hawai`i Law Review Symposium: Justice Scalia and the Religion Clauses. 22 UH L. Rev. 501.

Federalism and Federal Spending: Why the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 is Unconstitutional. 23 UH L. Rev. 479.

Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez: A Correct Application of the U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment Limited Public Forum Analysis. 24 UH L. Rev. 331.

Hawai`i's Response to Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation and the Protection of Citizens' Right to Petition the Government. 24 UH L. Rev. 411.

Revisiting San Francisco Arts & Athletics v. United States Olympic Committee: Why It Is Time to Narrow Protection of the Word "Olympic". 24 UH L. Rev. 729.

Child Pornography on the Internet: The Effect of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 on Tort Recovery for Victims Against Internet Service Providers. 24 UH L. Rev. 763.

State's ban on write-in voting does not unreasonably infringe upon voters' constitutional rights. 504 U.S. 428.

Military bases are at least one location in which First Amendment restrictions are permissible. 582 F.2d 1194.

If government creates a public forum, even though under no duty to do so, its power to exclude expression is severely limited. 710 F.2d 1410.

Recalled officials likely to succeed on claim that two-year ban on their election to office is unconstitutional. 775 F.2d 1393.

Section 11-216(d)'s prohibition on complainant publicly disclosing that complaint was filed with campaign spending commission and on other disclosures by third parties unconstitutionally overbroad. 30 F.3d 1115.

Prison officials entitled to 42 U.S.C. §1983 qualified immunity from inmate's claim of retaliatory punishment for exercising inmate's First Amendment rights where reasonable prison official would have believed that inmate's transfer from minimum to medium security facility was lawful, advancing legitimate penological goals. 55 F.3d 454.

Where appellants claimed, inter alia, that restrictions imposed on organizations who chose to receive Legal Services Corporation funds were unconstitutional because they conditioned the receipt of a benefit, the grant of federal funds, on the relinquishment of the right to engage in protected activities, appellants' unconstitutional conditions argument was without merit because neither the congressional enactments nor the implementing regulations infringed on First Amendment rights. 145 F.3d 1017.

Government cannot require an individual to relinquish First Amendment rights as a condition of employment. 437 F. Supp. 368.

Joint efforts to influence officials in the exercise of their public duties are beyond scope of antitrust laws in that to prohibit such activity would impair right to petition government. 460 F. Supp. 1359.

County ordinance which allows refusal to issue, suspension, or revocation of license to exhibit public shows on grounds of (1) presentation of obscene, indecent, or immoral show; or (2) past violation of certain pornography statutes is unconstitutional on its face. 488 F. Supp. 820.

Service of process is an expressive act protected by the First Amendment. 823 F. Supp. 806.

With the ability to control the separately incorporated and insular second organization, alternative channels existed for Legal Services Corporation-funded organizations to pursue their constitutionally protected activities; thus, the Legal Services Corporation regulations did not constitute an unconstitutional condition and thus, were not violative of plaintiffs' First Amendment rights. 981 F. Supp. 1288.

State's motion for a preliminary injunction granted, where State sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin defendants from taking any further steps to implement termination agreement and close newspaper, and defendants claimed, among other things, that any injunctive relief would necessarily violate their First Amendment rights to refrain from speaking or publishing. 99 F. Supp. 2d 1241.

Section 842-2(3) does not implicate First Amendment concerns because it is neither directed at, nor does it regulate or proscribe First Amendment freedoms, i.e., membership in a political organization or certain beliefs held by an individual. 84 H. 211, 933 P.2d 48.

Ordinance prohibiting use of streets for soliciting sales does not abridge freedom of press or freedom of speech. 43 H. 71.

"Loitering" statutes, effect of First Amendment, section 265-52 distinguished. 49 H. 624, 632, 425 P.2d 1014.

Narrowing of statute by common sense interpretation where no First Amendment rights involved. 49 H. 624, 634, 425 P.2d 1014.

Obstructing use of university office constituted conduct outside First Amendment rights, and ex parte temporary restraining order was not constitutionally invalid. 52 H. 427, 478 P.2d 320.

Exercise of First Amendment rights and the trespass statutes. 54 H. 450, 509 P.2d 1095.

Obscenity is outside protection of First Amendment. 58 H. 440, 573 P.2d 945.

Not violated by disqualification of recalled officials from running for vacancy created by recall. 68 H. 263, 711 P.2d 723.

Reporter's right of access to government news conferences. 369 F. Supp. 906.

Factors used to determine whether news reporter must reveal sources in libel action. 507 F. Supp. 880.

Is not an absolute. 45 H. 317, 367 P.2d 472.

Freedom of press guarantee is not sufficient in itself to protect reporter from being compelled to disclose confidential news source. 45 H. 317, 367 P.2d 472.

In libel action, newspaper publisher not entitled to have case withdrawn from the jury merely because the article is not clearly defamatory. 49 H. 675, 681-83, 427 P.2d 79.

In libel action by county supervisor against newspaper, plaintiff at trial must show knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth, but upon defendant's motion for summary judgment situation different. 49 H. 675, 427 P.2d 79.

Libel action by public official against newspaper; summary judgment for defendant granted when. 50 H. 648, 448 P.2d 337.

Defamation; concept of "public figure" discussed. 56 H. 522, 543 P.2d 1356.

News media liable for negligent defamation of private person. 56 H. 522, 543 P.2d 1356.

Right to freedom of press not denied by the closing of judicial proceedings to the public. 59 H. 224, 580 P.2d 49.

Where plaintiff in defamation action failed to prove that newspaper had acted with actual malice when it erroneously published story naming plaintiff as the target of an investigation, summary judgment for newspaper properly granted. 89 H. 254, 971 P.2d 1089.

Statute declaring Good Friday as state holiday does not violate establishment clause. 932 F.2d 765.

University policy of not funding student organizational activities intended to or actually promoting particular religious points of view, even if secular in context, constitutional if funding criteria evenly applied to all eligible groups seeking funding of nonsectarian events. 15 F.3d 922.

Compelling government interest in preventing trespass to military land outweighs defendant's free exercise of religion. 582 F.2d 1194.

Sex education films, shown to 5th and 6th grades, with excusal system which permitted parents to have their children excused from viewing the films did not violate the free exercise of religion clause. 52 H. 436, 478 P.2d 314.

Not violated by requiring church-run school to make unemployment contributions on behalf of its lay teachers and staff. 68 H. 410, 718 P.2d 267.

Geothermal plant does not regulate or burden religious beliefs nor does it inhibit religious speech. 69 H. 255, 740 P.2d 28.

Under the First Amendment and article I, §4 of Hawai`i constitution, civil courts have no authority to resolve disputes that turn on matters of church doctrine, practice, polity, or administration or that cannot be decided without resolving underlying controversies over such matters. When faced with such claims, civil courts must dismiss them. 77 H. 383, 885 P.2d 361.

Not violated by director's failure to grant building height restriction zoning variance for temple hall where plaintiff Buddhist temple failed to demonstrate substantial burden on its free exercise of religion because of height restriction. 87 H. 217, 953 P.2d 1315.

Statute prohibiting possession of marijuana did not burden defendant's free exercise of religion. 5 H. App. 411, 695 P.2d 336.

Where plaintiff failed to show sufficient likelihood that state child protective services agency would violate plaintiff's privacy rights in the future, plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive relief against agency. 68 F.3d 331.

Sex education film series shown to 5th and 6th grades with excusal system which permitted parents to have their children excused from viewing films did not contravene parents' right of privacy. 52 H. 436, 478 P.2d 314.

Does not prevent defendant's exclusion from military base after being barred. 472 U.S. 675.

HRS §291C-77(c), banning political signs on public sidewalk, denies freedom of speech. 516 F.2d 892.

Section 11-216(d) unconstitutional to the extent that it prevents an individual from disclosing that the individual filed a complaint with campaign spending commission. 30 F.3d 1115.

Defendants' statements implying attorney's poor client representation not defamatory where general and specific contexts in which statements were made did not imply assertion of an objective fact and statements were incapable of being proved true or false. 56 F.3d 1147.

Plaintiffs' sales of T-shirts imprinted with philosophical and inspirational messages fell within ambit of First Amendment; peddling ordinance prohibiting sale of merchandise on city streets was content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests throughout Waikiki, and left ample alternative channels of communication. 76 F.3d 1009.

Plaintiffs' free speech claim rejected, where plaintiffs argued that Hawaii's policy of putting all questions on the same physical ballot, when combined with Hawai`i State AFL-CIO v. Yoshina's method for calculating a majority, "coerced" votes in violation of First Amendment. 140 F.3d 1218.

District court judgment in favor of plaintiff affirmed, where defendants, state officials, contended, among other things, that there was insufficient evidence to support court's findings of retaliatory motives on the part of defendants. 283 F.3d 1070.

Mt. Healthy mixed-motive analysis applies to First Amendment claims, regardless of whether the plaintiff uses direct or circumstantial evidence to prove there was a retaliatory motive behind the adverse employment action. 283 F.3d 1070.

Ordinance requiring all publishers who wished to distribute their publications along sidewalks in the Waikiki special district to use one of two sets of newsracks, one reserved solely for publications that charge readers and one just for free publications, did not violate the First Amendment. 298 F.3d 1037.

Where plaintiff-physician claimed that plaintiff had been illegally harassed and retaliated against by the defendants who acted as part of an illegal conspiracy against plaintiff and that all of the defendants' actions constituted retaliation against plaintiff for exercising plaintiff's First Amendment right to speak out about inmate abuse at correctional facility, defendants, among other things, engaged in a conspiracy to deprive plaintiff of constitutionally protected rights to free speech in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983. 99 F. Supp. 2d 1216.

Where defendants argued that plaintiff waived constitutional right to free speech by voluntarily signing Code of Fair Campaign Practices (Code), plaintiff did not waive ability to assert First Amendment rights; campaign spending commission's (commission) administrative decision did not have preclusive effect on the court proceeding; Code unconstitutionally burdened protected speech; commission's censure of plaintiff violated plaintiff's First Amendment rights to free speech. 135 F. Supp. 2d 1114.

In lawsuit involving a challenge to city and county of Honolulu's practice of charging nonresidents a $3.00 fee to enter bay designated a marine life conservation district and nature preserve, plaintiff's First Amendment rights not violated and ordinance instituting the fee not overbroad. 215 F. Supp. 2d 1098.

Violated by city ordinance purporting to prohibit outdoor political signs on private and public property. 762 F. Supp. 280.

Rule 3.5(b) of Hawaii rules of professional conduct unconstitutional, where, inter alia, language of rule 3.5(b) prohibiting ex parte communication with jurors "except as permitted by law" was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. 916 F. Supp. 1525.

Statements in editorial about plaintiff (when plaintiff was mayor) were protected by First Amendment and thus, not actionable. 930 F. Supp. 1403.

Where plaintiffs filed motion for preliminary injunction regarding Act 359 of 1993 Hawaii legislature (relating to Hawaiian sovereignty), as amended in 1994 and 1996, plaintiffs unlikely to prevail on First Amendment claims as to native Hawaiian vote. 941 F. Supp. 1529.

Plaintiff (who previously held a position at correctional facility), was not entitled to First Amendment protection, where plaintiff's repeated grievances and complaints regarding plaintiff's lack of safety at correctional facility, i.e., plaintiff's requests for a personal security guard, did not substantially involve matters of public concern. 25 F. Supp. 2d 1124.

Right to receive information and ideas not infringed by statutes proscribing possession of marijuana. 56 H. 501, 542 P.2d 366.

Standard for suppression of evidence where seizure violated freedom of speech or expression. 63 H. 596, 634 P.2d 80.

Ordinance prohibiting distribution of commercial handbills in Waikiki impermissibly regulated commercial speech. 64 H. 148, 637 P.2d 1117.

Peddling ordinance unduly restricted commercial speech. 64 H. 499, 643 P.2d 1058.

Attorneys' extrajudicial statements may be subject to prior restraint by trial court upon demonstration that the activity restrained poses a serious and imminent threat to defendant's right to a fair trial and to the fair administration of justice. 73 H. 499, 835 P.2d 637.

Section 707-716 not unconstitutional where threats sufficiently unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and imminent prospect of execution. 75 H. 398, 862 P.2d 1063.

Where plaintiff was removed from project, State did not violate the Hawai`i Whistleblowers' Protection Act or the First Amendment when it reassigned the project to someone else. 76 H. 332, 876 P.2d 1300.

Defendant's statement not false or defamatory where statement was rhetorical hyperbole -- figurative or hyperbolic language that would negate the impression that defendant was asserting an objective fact about plaintiff. 88 H. 94, 962 P.2d 353.

Neither the free speech clause of the U.S. Constitution nor that of the Hawaii constitution impose a temporal "immediacy" requirement that must be met before words become subject to criminal prosecution as "true threats" under §§707-715 and 707-716. 95 H. 465, 24 P.3d 661.

Section 852-1 not unconstitutional as it does not prohibit picketing or the communication of messages altogether, is specifically aimed at conduct causing an obstruction of ingress to or egress from public or private places, and individuals may continue to exercise rights guaranteed by the First Amendment and article I, §4 of the Hawaii constitution as long as they do not do so in a manner prohibited by section. 89 H. 27 (App.), 968 P.2d 194.

Freedom of press. 78-2 HLR 78-781.