Talley v. California
4 L. Ed. 2d 559, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1948, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal ordinance that completely bans the distribution of any handbill that does not include the name and address of its author, printer, and distributor is void on its face because it infringes upon the freedom of speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Facts:
- Manuel Talley distributed handbills in Los Angeles for an organization called the 'National Consumers Mobilization'.
- The handbills urged readers to boycott certain merchants who allegedly engaged in discriminatory employment practices against Black, Mexican, and Asian individuals.
- The handbills included the name of the organization, a P.O. Box address, and a phone number.
- A Los Angeles city ordinance required that any distributed handbill must also include the true names and addresses of the person who printed, wrote, compiled, or caused it to be distributed.
- Talley's handbills did not contain this specific identification information, leading to his arrest for violating the ordinance.
Procedural Posture:
- Talley was tried and found guilty of violating the ordinance in a Los Angeles Municipal Court and was fined $10.
- Talley appealed the conviction to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, arguing the ordinance was unconstitutional.
- The Appellate Department, the highest state court available to the petitioner for this case, affirmed the conviction.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the constitutional question.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city ordinance that prohibits the distribution of any handbill unless it contains the names and addresses of the persons who prepared, distributed, or sponsored it unconstitutionally abridge the freedom of speech and press?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Black
Yes, the ordinance unconstitutionally abridges the freedom of speech and press. The freedom to distribute information anonymously is a historically important aspect of the liberty of the press, as anonymous pamphlets have been a crucial tool for persecuted groups to criticize oppressive laws and practices. This ordinance is not narrowly tailored to prevent fraud, libel, or other evils; instead, it imposes a broad ban on all anonymous handbills, regardless of their content. Such an identification requirement can deter peaceful discussion of public matters by exposing individuals to potential retaliation, thus restricting the freedom of expression. Citing precedents like Lovell v. Griffin, the Court found that 'liberty of circulating is as essential to that freedom as liberty of publishing' and held the ordinance void on its face.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clark
No, the ordinance does not unconstitutionally abridge freedom of speech. The ordinance does not constitute a total ban on distribution but is merely a regulatory measure requiring identification to prevent fraud, false advertising, and libel. The petitioner, Talley, made no showing that he or his group would suffer any reprisal or harm from being identified. The Constitution does not protect a freedom of anonymity, and the Court has previously upheld statutes requiring identification in other contexts, such as for newspapers using second-class mail, federal lobbying, and political campaign literature. The ordinance promotes responsibility in public discourse and the city's interest in preventing abuse outweighs the petitioner's unsubstantiated claim of infringement.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes, the ordinance is unconstitutional. The proper approach is to weigh the state's asserted interest against the ordinance's infringement on free speech. The city claims the ordinance prevents fraud and libel, but it is not limited to those specific harms. The ordinance is an overbroad, all-embracing prohibition on anonymous handbills. The city failed to provide a substantial showing of actual experience with obnoxious handbills that would justify the deterrent effect this sweeping ban has on free speech. Without a more compelling justification for such a broad suppression, the ordinance is constitutionally unacceptable.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant precedent by recognizing that the First Amendment's protection of free speech encompasses the right to speak and distribute literature anonymously. The Court's decision invalidates broad, prophylactic laws that require identification, demanding that any such restriction be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. This ruling has had a lasting impact on subsequent cases involving political speech, campaign finance disclosures, and online anonymity, setting a high bar for government attempts to compel the identification of speakers.
Unlock the full brief for Talley v. California