Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
icon
This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR
(August 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

1982 United States Supreme Court case
Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee
Argued October 4, 1982
Decided December 8, 1982
Full case nameBrown, et al. v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee (Ohio), et al.
Docket no.81-776
Citations459U.S.87 (more)
103 S. Ct. 416; 74L. Ed. 2d 250; 1982U.S. LEXIS 169
ArgumentOral argument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
PriorAppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Holding
States cannot require a minor political party to disclose its membership or associates, when doing so would jeopardize the safety of those persons.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityMarshall, joined by Burger, Brennan, White, Blackmun (parts I, III, IV), Powell
ConcurrenceBlackmun
Concur/dissentO'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee, 459 U.S. 87 (1982), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with political speech, and whether a state could require a minor political party to disclose its membership, expenditures, and contributors.

At the time, most states required political parties to disclose their contributions and expenditures; in 1982, the Court ruled that theSocialist Workers Party, a minor party in Ohio, was not required to disclose its contributors or recipients, on the basis of retributive animus and harassment if party functionaries did so.[1]

References

[edit]
  1. ^Greenhouse, Linda (December 9, 1982)."JUSTICES BACK MINOR POLITICAL PARTIES ON DISCLOSURE".The New York Times. RetrievedJuly 14, 2018.

External links

[edit]
Unprotected speech
Clear and
present danger

andimminent
lawless action
Defamation and
false speech
Fighting words and
theheckler's veto
True threats
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Overbreadth and
Vagueness doctrines
Symbolic speech
versus conduct
Content-based
restrictions
Content-neutral
restrictions
In the
public forum
Designated
public forum
Nonpublic
forum
Compelled speech
Compelled subsidy
of others' speech
Government grants
and subsidies
Government speech
Loyalty oaths
School speech
Public employees
Hatch Act and
similar laws
Licensing and
restriction of speech
Commercial speech
Campaign finance
and political speech
Anonymous speech
State action
Official retaliation
Boycotts
Prisons
Stub icon

This article related to a case of theSupreme Court of the United States of theBurger Court is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brown_v._Socialist_Workers_%2774_Campaign_Committee&oldid=1311175338"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp