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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/888205/denke-v-shoemaker/ ↗

Full Text

1,059 chars

¶51 While we conclude that reasonable and viewpoint-neutral limitations on speech at a council meeting may be imposed, we by no means retreat from “ ‘the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes -unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.’ ” Skinner v. Pistoria, 194 Mont. 257, 261, 633 P.2d 672, 674-75 (1981) (quoting New York Times, 376 U.S. at 270, 84 S. Ct. at 721). As we stated in Skinner, “[t]he concern which all citizens have in the proper conduct of public affairs by public officials requires that there be wide freedom to criticize that conduct, even though the criticism be unjustified or extravagant.” Skinner, 194 Mont. at 262, 633 P.2d at 675. We reaffirm these views. At the same time, however, we conclude that imposition of reasonable and viewpoint-neutral time, place, and maimer restrictions at a city council meeting will not unduly hamper debate on public issues or criticism of the conduct of public affairs.

Other Sections in This Document (1000)

Full Text