Walter Hoye, Ii v. City of Oakland

Good Law
653 F.3d 835·2011 WL 3198233·2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15541
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 28, 201109-16753California13,459 words

Opinion

Opinion

Berzon, J.

Throughout our nation’s history, Americans have counted on the First Amendment to protect their right to ask their fellow citizens to change their mind. Abolitionists, suffragists, socialists, pacifists, union members, war protestors, religious believers, civil rights campaigners, anti-tax activists, and countless others have appealed to the principle, enshrined within the First Amendment, that in a democracy such as ours, public debate must be robust and free and that, for it to be so, the Constitution’s protection of the freedom of speech must extend to the sidewalk encounter of the proselytizer and his prospective convert. These instances of public persuasion constitute the lifeblood of a self-governing people’s liberty, and so even when the beliefs propagated seem to some the “rankest error” that “naturally would offend” any listener, our founding charter deems such encounters “in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy.” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309-310, 60 S.Ct. 900 , 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940). This case calls on us to apply that principle.

Walter Hoye, a minister, is a so-called…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.