When the record did not indicate that a tenant union provided inadequate, unethical, or complex legal advice to tenants, the tenant union’s information service was protected by free speech guarantees. Hopper v. City of Madison, 79 Wis. 2d 120, 256 N.W.2d 139 (1977).

The public’s right to be aware of all facts surrounding an issue does not interfere with the right of a newspaper to reject advertising. Wisconsin Ass’n of Nursing Homes, Inc. v. Journal Co., 92 Wis. 2d 709, 285 N.W.2d 891 (Ct. App. 1979).

Setting procedures to determine whether a journalist may properly invoke privilege to prevent disclosure of confidential sources. State ex rel. Green Bay Newspaper Co. v. Circuit Court, 113 Wis. 2d 411, 335 N.W.2d 367 (1983).

The right of free speech applies against state action, not private action. Jacobs v. Major, 139 Wis. 2d 492, 407 N.W.2d 832 (1987).

News gatherers have no constitutional right of access to disaster scenes beyond that accorded the general public. City of Oak Creek v. King, 148 Wis. 2d 532, 436 N.W.2d 285 (1989).

Commercial speech is protected by the 1st amendment. The government must show that a restriction directly advances a substantial interest for it to be constitutional. City of Milwaukee v. Blondis, 157 Wis. 2d 730, 460 N.W.2d 815 (Ct. App. 1990).

A sentence based on an activity protected by the 1st amendment is constitutionally invalid, but when a sufficient link to criminal activity is shown, the activity is no longer protected. State v. J.E.B., 161 Wis. 2d 655, 469 N.W.2d 192 (Ct. App. 1991).

Although music is accorded a presumption of being protected speech, an ordinance prohibiting all unreasonable noise was not an unconstitutionally vague encroachment on free speech. City of Madison v. Baumann, 162 Wis. 2d 660, 470 N.W.2d 296 (1991).

An employee’s free speech rights were not violated when the employer’s need for confidentiality and discipline clearly outweighed the employee’s interest in disclosing confidential information. Barnhill v. Board of Regents, 166 Wis. 2d 395, 479 N.W.2d 917 (1992).

The 1st amendment rights of inmates are subject to limitation and regulation. Interception and withholding of inter-inmate correspondence was reasonable. Yoder v. Palmeri, 177 Wis. 2d 756, 502 N.W.2d 903 (Ct. App. 1993).

Whether a restriction on nude dancing is overbroad depends on whether the ordinance is targeted at curbing only harmful secondary effects of exotic clubs. Fond du Lac County v. Mentzel, 195 Wis. 2d 313, 536 N.W.2d 160 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-1924.

The state’s power to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages under the 21st amendment includes the lesser power to ban nude dancing on premises where alcohol is served. Schultz v. City of Cumberland, 195 Wis. 2d 554, 536 N.W.2d 192 (Ct. App. 1995), 94-3106.

Discussing restrictions upon the free speech rights of inmates. Lomax v. Fiedler, 204 Wis. 2d 196, 554 N.W.2d 841 (Ct. App. 1996), 95-2304.

A zoning ordinance that did not set aside any area where an adult bookstore would be allowed was impermissible. Town of Wayne v. Bishop, 210 Wis. 2d 218, 565 N.W.2d 201 (Ct. App. 1997), 95-2387.

A public nudity ordinance will meet a challenge that it is facially overbroad if it is drafted in a manner that addresses the secondary effects of adult entertainment without suffocating protected expression in a real and substantial manner. Lounge Management, Ltd. v. Town of Trenton, 219 Wis. 2d 13, 580 N.W.2d 156 (1998), 96-1853.

Obscenity is, and has been, an abuse of the right to speak freely on all subjects under the state constitution. The breadth of protection offered by the Wisconsin Constitution in the context of obscenity is no greater than that afforded by the 1st amendment. County of Kenosha v. C&S Management, Inc., 223 Wis. 2d 373, 588 N.W.2d 236 (1999), 97-0642.

When an ordinance regulates 1st amendment activities, the government normally has the burden of defending the regulation beyond a reasonable doubt, but when prior restraints are concerned and the government action at issue is the review of an applicant’s qualifications for a business license, the city does not bear the burden of going to court to effect the denial of a license, nor does it bear the burden of proof once in court. City News & Novelty, Inc. v. City of Waukesha, 231 Wis. 2d 93, 604 N.W.2d 870 (Ct. App. 1999), 97-1504.

Unfiled pretrial materials in a civil action between private parties are not public records and neither the public nor the press has either a common law or constitutional right of access to those materials. State ex rel. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc. v. Circuit Court, 2000 WI 16, 233 Wis. 2d 1, 605 N.W.2d 868, 99-2810.

A town ordinance prohibiting nudity on premises operating under a retail Class B liquor license was constitutional under City of Erie, 529 U.S. 277 (2000). Urmanski v. Town of Bradley, 2000 WI App 141, 237 Wis. 2d 545, 613 N.W.2d 905, 99-2330.

Only a “true threat” is punishable under statutes criminalizing threats. A true threat is a statement that a speaker would reasonably foresee that a listener would reasonably interpret as a serious expression of a purpose to inflict harm, as distinguished from hyperbole, jest, innocuous talk, expressions of political views, or other similarly protected speech. It is not necessary that the speaker have the ability to carry out the threat. State v. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, 243 Wis. 2d 141, 626 N.W.2d 762, 99-1924. But see Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. ___, 143 S. Ct. 2106, 216 L. Ed. 2d 775 (2023).

Purely written speech, even if it fails to cause an actual disturbance, can constitute disorderly conduct, but the state has the burden to prove that the speech is constitutionally unprotected “abusive” conduct. “Abusive” conduct is conduct that is injurious, improper, hurtful, offensive, or reproachful. True threats clearly fall within the scope of this definition. State v. Douglas D., 2001 WI 47, 243 Wis. 2d 204, 626 N.W.2d 725, 99-1767.

Although the 1st amendment prohibits law enforcement officials from prosecuting protected speech, it does not necessarily follow that schools may not discipline students for such speech. Like law enforcement officials, educators may not punish students merely for expressing unpopular viewpoints, but the 1st amendment must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. Schools may limit or discipline conduct that for any reason materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others. State v. Douglas D., 2001 WI 47, 243 Wis. 2d 204, 626 N.W.2d 725, 99-1767.

Application of the disorderly conduct statute to speech alone is permissible under appropriate circumstances. When speech is not an essential part of any exposition of ideas, when it is utterly devoid of social value, and when it can cause or provoke a disturbance, the disorderly conduct statute can be applicable. State v. A.S., 2001 WI 48, 243 Wis. 2d 173, 626 N.W.2d 712, 99-2317.

A county public assembly ordinance that contained a 60-day advance filing requirement, a 45-day processing time period, a prohibition against advertising, promoting, and selling tickets before a license was issued, a required certification by the zoning administrator, and a license fee in excess of $100 per application was not narrowly tailored to achieve a significant government interest and violated the 1st amendment free speech guarantee. Sauk County v. Gumz, 2003 WI App 165, 266 Wis. 2d 758, 669 N.W.2d 509, 02-0204.

The exception to protection for “true threats” is not limited to threats directed only at a person or group of individuals, nor is it limited to a threat of bodily harm or death. State v. Robert T., 2008 WI App 22, 307 Wis. 2d 488, 746 N.W.2d 564, 06-2206.

In this case, supervisory conditions limiting the defendant’s internet use were not unconstitutionally overbroad and did not impermissibly infringe the defendant’s 1st amendment rights when the conditions were crafted to provide protection for the public, and the defendant had a history of violating similar conditions. The circuit court could reasonably conclude that the defendant’s prior violations of internet conditions raised significant concerns about the need to protect the public and children in light of the defendant’s convictions for using a computer to facilitate a sex crime, child enticement, sexual assault of a child, and child abuse. State v. King, 2020 WI App 66, 394 Wis. 2d 431, 950 N.W.2d 891, 19-1642.

The 1st amendment does not uphold a right to threaten or scare people in order to sway their religious beliefs or induce them to quit their jobs. Kindschy v. Aish, 2022 WI App 17, 401 Wis. 2d 406, 973 N.W.2d 828, 20-1775.

The name change prohibition in s. 301.47 (2) (a) does not implicate the right to free speech by infringing expressive conduct. The 1st amendment right to free speech does not encompass the power to compel the state to facilitate a change of a legal name. Producing one’s legal name is properly understood as conduct subject to government regulation, not speech. State v. C.G., 2022 WI 60, 403 Wis. 2d 229, 976 N.W.2d 318, 18-2205.