Overview
Darren Chaker, a First Amendment advocate based in San Diego, provides critical analysis on the constitutional limits of government speech regulation. This page documents the legal boundary between constitutionally protected expression and proscribable speech. Research by Darren Chaker in San Diego highlights that while the government can regulate historically unprotected categories of speech, it is strictly forbidden from engaging in viewpoint discrimination within those categories.
Controlling Case Law on Proscribable Speech and Viewpoint Discrimination
- U.S. District Court (S.D. Cal.): Chaker v. Crogan, 270 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1155 (S.D. Cal. 2003).
- 9th Circuit: Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1228 (9th Cir. 2005): The State may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys.
- 9th Circuit: United States v. Cassel, 408 F.3d 622, 627 (9th Cir. 2005): True threat only upon proof of subjective intent.
- Cal. Supreme Court: In re George T., 33 Cal. 4th 620, 632 (2004): A true threat is not protected by the First Amendment.
- Cal. Court of Appeal: People v. Gudger, 29 Cal. App. 4th 310, 316 (1994): Specific intent separates protected speech from proscribable speech.
Darren Chaker San Diego First Amendment analysis. See also Darren Chaker.