<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

A federal judge in Kentucky has issued a ruling partially protecting free speech on the internet. In a case brought by a candidate for judge, the court applied a recent United States Supreme Court case, Minnesota GOP v White.536 U.S. 765 (2002) Link to follow. My guess is that the candidate is a right to life activist (not necessarily one of Jim Bopp's clients.) He is probably more interested in winning this case than the judgeship. I could be wrong.
,
When deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a district court should balance:
(1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant
would suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued; (3) whether issuance of the injunction
would cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served by
issuance of the injunction. Tumblebus, Inc. v. Cranmer, 399 F.3d 754, 760 (6th Cir.), cert. denied,
126 S.Ct. 361 (2005). In First Amendment cases, the first factor will often be determinative. See
Connection Distrib. Co. v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281, 288 (6th Cir. 1998).

Carey v Wolnitzek aka Ky Judicial Comm'n. (E.D.Ky 11/2006)

Family Trust Foundation of Kentucky v. Wolnitzek,
345 F. Supp. 2d 672 (E.D.Ky 2004). This case seems to be a followup to the above case, which I haven't read.

Speech during an election campaign “occupies the core of the protection afforded by the First
Amendment.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 346 (1995).

Speech during an election campaign “occupies the core of the protection afforded by the First
Amendment.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 514 U.S. 334, 346 (1995). The proper test to be
applied to determine the constitutionality of restrictions on “core political speech” is strict scrutiny.
Id. at 347....is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest and is unconstitutional.

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?