Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008)

Citation
Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008)
Parent Document
Denke v. Shoemaker, 2008 MT 418 (2008)
Jurisdiction
Montana (state)
Effective Date
2008-12-16

Other Sections in This Document (1000)

Full Text

1,002 chars
¶47 The City contends that there are “legal limits” on the City Council’s “ability to restrict speech” at a council meeting. We agree. “It *338is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys.” Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the Univ. of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819, 828, 115 S. Ct. 2510, 2516 (1995). Nor may government, in the realm of private speech or expression, favor one speaker over another. Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 828, 115 S. Ct. at 2516. Indeed, viewpoint discrimination is “an egregious form of content discrimination,” and the government “must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.” Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 829, 115 S. Ct. at 2516. These well-settled principles are mandated not only by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, but also by Article II, Section 7 of the Montana Constitution.