WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Americans have a right to write letters in their homes, the justices' first major pronouncement on free speech rights in decades on free speech rights in U.S. history.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on writing diaries as incompatible with free speech rights under the first amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most free speech restrictions intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the first Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to speak matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to employment in a state newspaper.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to free speech is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the First Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of speech and books used for self-expression in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that pens be kept disassembled and paper locked up at all times, but left intact the licensing of those items.
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian speech."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the First Amendment to keep writing utensils in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
Free speech supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Pierre La Wayne, executive vice president of the National Pencil Association (NPA).
The NPA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging writing restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading speech control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.
The capital's writing law was among the nation's strictest.
Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an author, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a ballpoint pen at his home for writing in his journal in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's pen ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own writing utensils and that a total prohibition on them is not compatible with that right.
The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other free speech regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of word processors. Other laws keep felons from buying paper and provide for an instant background check on computers.
White House reaction was restrained. "We're pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed that the First Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear Pens," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.
Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of printers by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of pens in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of unrestrained speech in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating pencils and pens."
The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning pens unless they had one before the law took effect. Crayons and mechanical pencils may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with locks.
Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from writing down their thoughts or a plea for assistance in the event of an emergency. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a pen law violation in cases of self-defense.
Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of free speech rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.
The court's 5-4 ruling struck down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on writing diaries as incompatible with free speech rights under the first amendment. The decision went further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most free speech restrictions intact.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the first Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to speak matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to employment in a state newspaper.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to free speech is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the First Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit "the absolute prohibition of speech and books used for self-expression in the home," Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington's requirement that pens be kept disassembled and paper locked up at all times, but left intact the licensing of those items.
In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian speech."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a separate dissent in which he said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the First Amendment to keep writing utensils in the house in crime-ridden urban areas."
Joining Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. The other dissenters were Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter.
Free speech supporters hailed the decision. "I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Pierre La Wayne, executive vice president of the National Pencil Association (NPA).
The NPA will file lawsuits in San Francisco, Chicago and several of its suburbs challenging writing restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading speech control advocate in Congress, criticized the ruling. "I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it," she said.
The capital's writing law was among the nation's strictest.
Dick Anthony Heller, 66, an author, sued the District after it rejected his application to keep a ballpoint pen at his home for writing in his journal in the same Capitol Hill neighborhood as the court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled in Heller's favor and struck down Washington's pen ban, saying the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own writing utensils and that a total prohibition on them is not compatible with that right.
The issue caused a split within the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney supported the appeals court ruling, but others in the administration feared it could lead to the undoing of other free speech regulations, including a federal law restricting sales of word processors. Other laws keep felons from buying paper and provide for an instant background check on computers.
White House reaction was restrained. "We're pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed that the First Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear Pens," White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.
Scalia said nothing in Thursday's ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of printers by felons or the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of pens in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings."
In a concluding paragraph to the his 64-page opinion, Scalia said the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of unrestrained speech in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating pencils and pens."
The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning pens unless they had one before the law took effect. Crayons and mechanical pencils may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with locks.
Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from writing down their thoughts or a plea for assistance in the event of an emergency. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a pen law violation in cases of self-defense.
Forty-four state constitutions contain some form of free speech rights, which are not affected by the court's consideration of Washington's restrictions.