Want to Criticize Moscow, Idaho? Be Sure to Get Permission

​You can get arrested in Moscow, Idaho, where one Rory Wilson was convicted for posting stickers opposing the city’s COVID-19 response without first getting official approval.
 
Moscow City Code Section 10-1-22 prohibits anyone from posting a “notice, sign, announcement, or other advertising matter” on public property “without prior approval, in writing” of the “governmental entity owning or controlling such property.”
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that such schemes are inherently suspect. In City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Company (1988), the Court held that when the government has “unbridled discretion” to grant someone the right to speak, it constitutes a “prior restraint” that “may result in censorship.” It may also result in self-censorship out of fear of an adverse government action, which should be as much of an anathema to principles of free speech as any overt prohibition.
 
Here, we have an example of a local government blatantly weaponizing the law to crack down on disfavored speech. Prior to Wilson’s arrest, the City of Moscow had never before enforced the code provision in question, and Moscow police admitted they were doing so in this case because they did not “agree” with the stickers’ “messaging.” Prior to the incident with Wilson, government officials had also repeatedly criticized his church for advocating against the city’s COVID-19 restrictions. The city prosecutor, specifically, called Wilson’s fellow congregants “religious idiots.”
 
The Supreme Court has repeatedly addressed similar discretionary permitting schemes. In Saia v. People of State of New York (1948), the Court found unconstitutional an ordinance requiring government permission before relaying “news and matters of public concern” over sound amplification equipment. In Largent v. State of Texas (1943), the Court likewise overturned an ordinance that required the mayor’s approval to sell certain books. And in Kunz v. People of State of New York (1951), the Court struck down an ordinance making “it unlawful to hold public worship meetings on the streets without first obtaining a permit from the city police commissioner.”
 
All of these schemes constituted prior restraints on speech. The present controversy in Moscow is no different. Unfortunately, Idaho courts didn’t see it that way, upholding Moscow’s law in contravention of well-established precedent. As a result, Protect The 1st will file an amicus brief in support of Wilson’s certiorari petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. 
 
U.S. citizens have the right to voice their views in the public square without government approval. It is one of our nation’s longest held traditions, a defining principle of our democratic traditions. Giving the government discretionary power to approve or deny the exercise of that right is an affront to the First Amendment.
 
We’ll follow up soon with our brief.

DONATE & HELP US PROTECT YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS