Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions for libels, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted.

ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For provision allowing a special motion to dismiss an unwarranted or specious lawsuit against a person for conduct or speech in a public setting, see 38-2-9.1 and 38-2-9.2 NMSA 1978.

For the Uniform Single Publication Act, see 41-7-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.

See Kearny Bill of Rights, cl. 12, on NMOneSource.com.

Comparable provisions. — Idaho Const., art. I, § 9.

Iowa Const., art. I, § 7.

Montana Const., art. II, § 7.

Utah Const., art. I, § 15.

Wyoming Const., art. I, § 20.

I. FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS.

Prohibiting commercial photography business from discriminating based on sexual orientation did not violate freedom of expression. — Where plaintiff offered wedding photography services to the general public; plaintiff’s business was a public accommodation under the Human Rights Act, 28-1-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.; plaintiff refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony between defendant and defendant’s partner on religious grounds; and plaintiff claimed that the act compelled plaintiff to express a positive image and message about same-sex commitment ceremonies contrary to plaintiff’s beliefs, the act did not violate plaintiff’s first amendment rights to refrain from speaking because the act only requires that businesses that operate as a public accommodation, cannot discriminate against potential clients based on their sexual orientation, it does not compel plaintiff to either speak a government-mandated message or to publish the speech of another person. Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2013-NMSC-040, aff’g 2012-NMCA-086, 284 P.3d 428.

Where plaintiff violated the Human Rights Act, 28-1-1 NMSA 1978 et seq., by refusing on religious and moral grounds to photograph defendant’s commitment ceremony with defendant’s same-sex partner; and plaintiff claimed that the act violated plaintiff’s freedom of expression because photography is an artistic expression entitled to first amendment protection, the act did not violate plaintiff’s freedom of expression because the act regulated plaintiff’s conduct in its commercial business, not its speech or right to express its views about same-sex relationships. Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2012-NMCA-086, 284 P.3d 428, aff’d, 2013-NMSC-040, 309 P.3d 53.

Broad interpretation of licensing act violated freedom of speech. — Where respondent, who was a hydrologist and a member of the board of directors of a conservancy district, investigated the use of demolition and construction waste as rip-rap in ditches and prepared and presented a report to the board of directors criticizing the conservancy district’s use of the rip-rap to prevent erosion; respondent used a civil engineering mathematical formula to compare the conveyance capacity of ditches that had rip-rap with ditches that had sandy bottoms and asserted that the rip-rap reduced conveyance capacity, led to flooding and bank erosion that could lead to failure; respondent criticized the district’s engineer who directed the use of the rip-rap; respondent reiterated multiple times that respondent was not an engineer and insisted that the district hire a registered engineer to review respondent’s report and to address the issue; and petitioner determined that respondent had practiced engineering without a license because respondent had applied engineering principles, equations and concepts to investigate and evaluate the flow of water in the district’s ditches, the petitioner’s broad interpretation and application of 61-23-23 NMSA 1978 violated respondent’s right to freedom of speech. N.M. Bd. of Licensure v. Turner, 2013-NMCA-067, 303 P.3d 875.

Ordinance imposed a prior restraint on free speech. — Where defendant stationed defendant and defendant’s truck in a public street to solicit funds to support defendant’s non-profit foundation; municipal ordinances prohibited solicitation of money at any time, place or manner unless a permit from the municipality had been obtained; the municipality did not provide instructions and procedures for applying for permits, standards for granting or denying permits, limitations on discretion to issue or deny permits, or regulations of the time, place, or manner of solicitation; and there was no evidence that the ordinances were narrowly tailored to serve a substantial, significant governmental interest or that the restrictions left open ample alternative channels for communication of the information defendant sought to give the public, the ordinances were facially invalid abridgments of first amendment speech. Village of Ruidoso v. Warner, 2012-NMCA-035, 274 P.3d 791.

Restrictions on an employee’s right to speak. — To determine the constitutionality of restrictions on the right to speak, an appellate court must decide whether the speech at issue addresses a matter of public concern and if so, decide the proper balance between the employee’s constitutional rights and the state’s interest as an employer in promoting efficient provision of public services. Kane v. City of Albuquerque, 2015-NMSC-027.

Where the city of Albuquerque’s charter and personnel rules prohibit employees of the city from being a candidate for, or from holding elective office of, the state of New Mexico or any of its political subdivisions, the charter and personnel rules did not impinge on petitioner’s first amendment rights because the charter and personnel rules did not violate petitioner’s right to speak on a matter of public concern because the mere fact of candidacy is not a matter of public concern, and laws that prohibit employees from running for elective office are justifiable because political activity may become a basis for the preferential treatment of employees and damage morale, and therefore impair government efficiency. Kane v. City of Albuquerque, 2015-NMSC-027.

Name change. — The district court did not deny the petitioner his right of free speech when the district court denied the petitioner’s request to change his name to "Fuck Censorship!". In the Matter of Petition of Variable, 2008-NMCA-105, 144 N.M. 633, 190 P.3d 354.

Nonharmful publications are completely protected. — Constitutional liberty of speech and press gives complete immunity from legal censure and punishment for all publications that are not harmful, as judged by standards of common law in force at time of adoption of parallel amendment to federal constitution. Curry v. Journal Publishing Co., 1937-NMSC-023, 41 N.M. 318, 68 P.2d 168, overruled by Ramirez v. Armstrong, 1983-NMSC-104, 100 N.M. 538, 673 P.2d 822.

Prohibiting any act designed to destroy government is unconstitutional. — Laws 1919, ch. 140, prohibiting performance of any act designed to destroy organized government and providing penalties for violation thereof, was unconstitutional as violative of constitutional right of free speech. State v. Diamond, 1921-NMSC-099, 27 N.M. 477, 202 P. 988, 20 A.L.R. 1527.

Enjoining motion picture as nuisance would be censorship. — The injunction to abate a nuisance in former 40-34-1 to 40-34-21, 1953 Comp., now repealed, if applied to motion pictures, would be in the nature of censorship and prior restraint. State ex rel. Murphy v. Morley, 1957-NMSC-087, 63 N.M. 267, 317 P.2d 317 (provision inapplicable to showing of motion pictures in regular business establishment).

Zoning ordinance regulating adult amusement establishments did not abridge freedom of speech. — Where defendant, who operated an art-house movie theater, was prosecuted under the municipality’s zoning ordinance covering adult amusement establishments for showing one pornographic film during a weekend festival of X-rated fare; the ordinance allowed adult films to be shown only in specified zones and prohibited the public screening of such films in other areas, including the area where the theater was located; about five percent of the municipality’s area was zoned to allow the exhibition of adult films; the municipality enacted the ordinance not to regulate the content of films, but to combat the negative secondary effects produced by showing adult films; and defendant could show adult movies in areas of the municipality that were zoned for the exhibition of adult films, the ordinance was a constitutionally valid regulation of the time, place, and manner of the exhibition of adult films as applied to defendant and did not abridge defendant’s freedom of speech. City of Albuquerque v. Pangaea Cinema, LLC, 2012-NMCA-075, 284 P.3d 1090, rev’d, 2013-NMSC-044, 310 P.3d 604.

Sit-in at university president's office may be punished. — Where defendants refused to honor the request of the university president to leave his office and refused to leave when he returned from lunch and had appointments to keep, they substantially interfered in the functioning of the president's business and 30-20-13 NMSA 1978, prior to the 1975 amendment thereof, was constitutionally applied to warrant their convictions. State v. Silva, 1974-NMCA-072, 86 N.M. 543, 525 P.2d 903, cert. denied, 86 N.M. 528, 525 P.2d 888.

Where 30-20-13 NMSA 1978, prior to the 1975 amendment thereto, vindicated the significant government interest in the control of campus disturbances, reasonable "time, place and manner" regulations were valid even though they incidentally suppressed otherwise protected conduct. State v. Silva, 1974-NMCA-072, 86 N.M. 543, 525 P.2d 903, cert. denied, 86 N.M. 528, 525 P.2d 888.

No first amendment protection for threats constituting interference with the educational process of a school. — True threats enjoy no constitutional protection, and to the extent 30-20-13(D) NMSA 1978 is used to punish true threats, the statute does not run afoul of the first amendment. State v. Quintin C., 2019-NMCA-069.

Conspiracy to boycott magazines is not protected. — Conspiracy to boycott or blacklist certain magazines by publications demanding that they be refused by newsdealers and readers is not protected by guarantee of free speech and press. Council of Defense v. International Magazine Co., 267 F. 390 (8th Cir. 1920).

Neither students nor teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate; school officials do not possess absolute authority over their students, and among the activities to which schools are dedicated is personal communication among students, which is an important part of the educational process. Futrell v. Ahrens, 1975-NMSC-044, 88 N.M. 284, 540 P.2d 214.

Personal intercommunication is only part of education. — Although personal intercommunication among students at schools, including universities, is an important part of the educational process, it is not the only, or even the most important, part of that process. Futrell v. Ahrens, 1975-NMSC-044, 88 N.M. 284, 540 P.2d 214.

Visitation in bedrooms by persons of opposite sex may be prohibited. — A regulation of the board of regents of the New Mexico state university which prohibited visitation by persons of the opposite sex in residence hall, or dormitory, bedrooms maintained by the regents on the university campus, except when moving into the residence halls and during annual homecoming celebrations, where the regents placed no restrictions on intervisitation between persons of the opposite sex in the lounges or lobbies of the residence halls, the student union building, library or other buildings, or at any other place on or off the campus, and no student was required to live in a residence hall, did not interfere appreciably, if at all, with the intercommunication important to the students of the university; the regulation was reasonable, served legitimate educational purposes and promoted the welfare of the students at the university. Futrell v. Ahrens, 1975-NMSC-044, 88 N.M. 284, 540 P.2d 214.

"Fighting words," the use of which is not protected by this constitutional provision, are those which tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. State v. Wade, 1983-NMCA-084, 100 N.M. 152, 667 P.2d 459.

Highway Beautification Act, 67-12-1 NMSA 1978 et seq., does not abridge freedom of speech in violation of the United States and New Mexico constitutions. Stuckey's Stores, Inc. v. O'Cheskey, 1979-NMSC-060, 93 N.M. 312, 600 P.2d 258, appeal dismissed, 446 U.S. 930, 100 S. Ct. 2145, 64 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1980).

Highway Beautification Act meets constitutionality test. — The Highway Beautification Act (67-12-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.) meets the three-pronged test used to determine whether a time, place and manner restriction is valid; the act's restrictions on plaintiffs' exercise of their freedom of speech is justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech; its restrictions on plaintiffs' freedom of speech serve a significant governmental interest and the act leaves open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. Stuckey's Stores, Inc. v. O'Cheskey, 1979-NMSC-060, 93 N.M. 312, 600 P.2d 258, appeal dismissed, 446 U.S. 930, 100 S. Ct. 2145, 64 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1980).

Plaintiffs failed to rebut act's presumption. — Where the plaintiffs introduced no evidence that any of their stores, which availed themselves of on-premise or unzoned commercial or industrial area signs, had suffered a great loss of business, they failed to rebut the presumption that the Highway Beautification Act provides adequate means for plaintiffs to exercise their freedom of speech. Stuckey's Stores, Inc. v. O'Cheskey, 1979-NMSC-060, 93 N.M. 312, 600 P.2d 258, appeal dismissed, 446 U.S. 930, 100 S. Ct. 2145, 64 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1980).

Outdoor advertising signs not protected. — Plaintiffs' outdoor advertising signs do not constitute the type of speech protected by the first and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution and this section. Stuckey's Stores, Inc. v. O'Cheskey, 1979-NMSC-060, 93 N.M. 312, 600 P.2d 258, appeal dismissed, 446 U.S. 930, 100 S. Ct. 2145, 64 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1980).

Test for constitutionality of sign ordinance. — Where a sign ordinance does not prohibit speech altogether, the precise issue is whether the sign ordinance is a legitimate time, place and manner restriction on speech. The criteria to be analyzed are threefold: (1) does the restriction serve a significant government interest? (2) is the restriction justifiable without reference to the content of the regulated speech? and, (3) does the restriction leave open ample alternative channels of communication? Temple Baptist Church, Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 1982-NMSC-055, 98 N.M. 138, 646 P.2d 565.

Limited restriction on political signs proper. — Where the only restriction on political signs is that campaign signs be a certain size, be erected earlier than 60 days prior to a primary or general election, and that the campaign signs be removed within 10 days after the election to which the sign pertains, clearly such a limited restriction on these types of political signs furthers a significant government interest in aesthetics. Temple Baptist Church, Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 1982-NMSC-055, 98 N.M. 138, 646 P.2d 565.

Sign ordinance held related to proper goals. — A sign ordinance regulating the size, height and number of signs is reasonably related to the proper goals of aesthetics and traffic safety. Temple Baptist Church, Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 1982-NMSC-055, 98 N.M. 138, 646 P.2d 565.

Media's right to publish is not absolute. — Media’s right to publish may be limited to protect other interests, such as a defendant's right to a fair trial. State ex rel. N.M. Press Ass'n v. Kaufman, 1982-NMSC-060, 98 N.M. 261, 648 P.2d 300.

Prior restraint gag orders on trial participants. — To ensure that an appropriate balance is struck between rights of free speech and the interest in fair and impartial adjudication, any prior restraint on public comment by trial participants must be accompanied by specific factual findings supporting the conclusion that further extrajudicial statements would pose a clear and present danger to the administration of justice. Twohig v. Blackmer, 1996-NMSC-023, 121 N.M. 746, 918 P.2d 332.

Publication of harassing and intimidating information was protected speech. — Where, in a contentious divorce and child custody proceeding, the district court ordered plaintiff to stop filing complaints, motions or other devices pertaining to the child’s guardian ad litem; plaintiff formed an organization called "Stop Court Abuse of Children", filed a disciplinary complaint against the guardian through the organization and discussed the custody proceedings and published pleadings in the custody proceedings and the disciplinary complaint on the organization’s website; the district court ordered plaintiff to remove the information from the website because the information was designed to harass and intimidate the guardian; and the court did not find that the information was defamatory, although the court’s order was not a prior restraint, because the order was entered after plaintiff published the information, the order was constitutionally invalid because the court’s finding that the information was harassing and intimidating was insufficient to show that the speech was not protected. Kimbrell v. Kimbrell, 2013-NMCA-070, 306 P.3d 495, rev’d, 2014-NMSC-027.

Test for ban on media coverage of trial. — If a ban on media coverage of a trial is sought for the purpose of protecting a defendant's right to a fair trial, the evidence must demonstrate that there is a substantial likelihood that the presence of cameras will deny the defendant a fair trial. However, if a limitation is sought to protect other interests, which involve important constitutional rights, a higher test should be required. The proponent of a ban should in that case prove that a serious and imminent threat to some other important interest exists. State ex rel. N.M. Press Ass'n v. Kaufman, 1982-NMSC-060, 98 N.M. 261, 648 P.2d 300.

Procedure for determining media ban. — In deciding whether to exclude media coverage of a particular criminal participant, the trial judge should require evidence sufficient to support a finding that such coverage will have a substantial effect upon the particular individual which would be qualitatively different from the effect on members of the public in general and that such effect will be qualitatively different from coverage by other types of media. State ex rel. N.M. Press Ass'n v. Kaufman, 1982-NMSC-060, 98 N.M. 261, 648 P.2d 300.

Before a criminal court places restrictions on the media, some minimum form of notice should be given to the media and a hearing held. Anyone present should be given an opportunity to object. These proceedings should take place in advance of the date set for trial, if possible, to avoid delays and postponements. State ex rel. N.M. Press Ass'n v. Kaufman, 1982-NMSC-060, 98 N.M. 261, 648 P.2d 300.

A court should weigh the competing interests of a criminal defendant and the public and determine if any news limitation sought would be effective in protecting the interests threatened and if it would be the least restrictive means available. Its consideration of these issues should be articulated in oral or written findings and conclusions in the record, but formal findings and conclusions are not necessary. The order must be no broader in application or duration than necessary to serve its purpose. State ex rel. N.M. Press Ass'n v. Kaufman, 1982-NMSC-060, 98 N.M. 261, 648 P.2d 300.

Order of protection’s restriction on respondent from contacting petitioner was not an unconstitutional limitation on respondent’s first amendment rights. — Where respondent appealed the district court’s finding that respondent violated an order of protection that prohibited respondent from contacting petitioner and from committing further acts of abuse or threats of abuse, which included stalking and harassment, against petitioner, and where respondent did not appeal or otherwise contest the district court’s express finding that respondent was a stalker prior to the date on which petitioner filed his affidavit of violation, respondent was subject to reasonable restraints imposed by the order of protection, which were valid limitations on respondent’s first amendment rights based on an uncontested finding that respondent was a stalker. Best v. Marino, 2017-NMCA-073, cert. denied.

Order of protection’s restriction of respondent’s ability to access the internet was unconstitutionally overbroad. — Where the district court issued an order of protection based on respondent’s sustained pattern of stalking and harassment of petitioner, the court’s restriction of respondent’s ability to access the internet was a clear prior restraint on respondent’s first amendment rights and was not the least restrictive means by which to address the harm in this case, and therefore the district court’s restriction was unconstitutionally overbroad and violated respondent’s first amendment rights. Best v. Marino, 2017-NMCA-073, cert. denied.

"Intolerable" standard for obscene materials. — The New Mexico constitution requires that the community must find allegedly obscene materials "intolerable" before they may be deemed as an "abuse" of the right to freely speak, write, and publish sentiments on all subjects. City of Farmington v. Fawcett, 1992-NMCA-075, 114 N.M. 537, 843 P.2d 839, cert. quashed, 114 N.M. 532, 843 P.2d 375.

This section of the New Mexico constitution requires that an "abuse" of free speech only occurs when the community cannot tolerate the matter. Thus, since a jury instruction based on acceptance was given, the defendant who was convicted of disseminating obscene material was entitled to a new trial so that the jury may be instructed on a community standard based on "tolerance." City of Farmington v. Fawcett, 1992-NMCA-075, 114 N.M. 537, 843 P.2d 839, cert. quashed, 114 N.M. 532, 843 P.2d 375.

Contemporary community standards should be judged by whether the average person or community would be tolerant of the materials in the possession of another, even though most members of the community might themselves be offended; community tolerance thus determines whether the material is patently offensive. State v. Rendleman, 2003-NMCA-150, 134 N.M. 744, 82 P.3d 554, cert. denied, 2003-NMCERT-003, 135 N.M. 51, 84 P.3d 668.

Although the state's interest in protecting innocent children from sexual exploitation is far more compelling than its interest in protecting consenting adults, what the community finds tolerable for adults will be a far cry from what it will tolerate when visual materials include children; thus, the intolerance standard provides a workable model for patent offensiveness under the Sexual Exploitation of Children Act, 30-6A-1 to 30-6A-4 NMSA 1978. State v. Rendleman, 2003-NMCA-150, 134 N.M. 744, 82 P.3d 554, cert. denied, 2003-NMCERT-003, 135 N.M. 51, 84 P.3d 668.

Nude dancing in licensed liquor establishments not protected. — The state's power to regulate liquor under the twenty-first amendment outweighs any first amendment interest in nude dancing, and, therefore, 30-9-14.1 NMSA 1978 is constitutional insofar as it applies to the prohibition of indecent dancing in licensed liquor establishments. Nall v. Baca, 1980-NMSC-138, 95 N.M. 783, 626 P.2d 1280.

Process of piercing female nipple is not sufficiently imbued with elements of communication, and exposing the female body this way for this purpose is not an artistic, dramatic, or educational form of expression entitled to free speech protection. City of Albuquerque v. Sachs, 2004-NMCA-065, 135 N.M. 578, 92 P.3d 24, cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-006, 135 N.M. 787, 93 P.3d 1292.

Regulation of cost of utility's advertising charged to ratepayers not abridgement of free speech. — A public service commission order which allowed utility companies to include in their cost of service, and pass on to their ratepayers, expenditures for "informational" advertising (e.g., safety, billing practices, etc.), but not expenditures for "institutional" advertising (e.g., enhancement of corporate image), and which required that a utility show by clear and convincing evidence that an advertising expense is allowable did not unconstitutionally abridge freedom of speech. El Paso Elec. Co. v. New Mexico Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 1985-NMSC-085, 103 N.M. 300, 706 P.2d 511.

Governing body's recommended policies that shield members from negative comments violate free speech. — Recommended policies by the Statewide Independent Living Council (SILC) that protect SILC members from derogatory, demeaning and bullying language at public meetings, but say nothing about protecting others from such language or preventing praise of the SILC members are not viewpoint neutral, but instead are viewpoint-dependent restrictions on speech and do not pass constitutional muster. 2026 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 26-08.

II. LIBEL.

A. IN GENERAL.

The invasion of an individual's right of privacy is a tort for which recovery may be granted, but it does not exist where a person has sought and achieved prominence. Blount v. TD Publ’g Corp., 1966-NMSC-262, 77 N.M. 384, 423 P.2d 421.

But right is subordinate to news dissemination. — The right of privacy is generally inferior and subordinate to the dissemination of news. Blount v. TD Publ’g Corp., 1966-NMSC-262, 77 N.M. 384, 423 P.2d 421.

Even though account affects persons not willingly participating in occurrence. — It is not an invasion of privacy to publish the account of an occurrence when it is of general interest even though the parties affected were not willing participants in the occurrence. Blount v. TD Publ’g Corp., 1966-NMSC-262, 77 N.M. 384, 423 P.2d 421.

The right of privacy is to be applied to the individual of ordinary sensibilities, not the supersensitive. Blount v. TD Publ’g Corp., 1966-NMSC-262, 77 N.M. 384, 423 P.2d 421.

Official record may give privilege. — A publication may be privileged as a matter of law where it is based on an official record. Blount v. TD Publ’g Corp., 1966-NMSC-262, 77 N.M. 384, 423 P.2d 421.

Ignorance of contents is defense to distributors, not publishers. — In libel actions publishers cannot escape liability on ground of ignorance of the defamatory content, but mere distributors may avoid liability by showing that they had no reason to believe the information to be libelous. Blount v. TD Publ’g Corp., 1966-NMSC-262, 77 N.M. 384, 423 P.2d 421.

News is question for trier of fact. — Where the individual's right of privacy is concerned and where the right of the public to be informed is involved, news is a question of fact that should be resolved by the trier of the facts. Blount v. TD Publ’g Corp., 1966-NMSC-262, 77 N.M. 384, 423 P.2d 421.

B. CRIMINAL LIBEL.

Criminal libel laws are valid. — New Mexico by this section extends broad protection to speech and press, but also reserves a responsibility for their abuse and recognizes validity of criminal libel laws. Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250, 72 S. Ct. 725, 96 L. Ed. 919, reh'g denied, 343 U.S. 988, 72 S. Ct. 1070, 96 L. Ed. 1375 (1952).

Provided they do not limit use of truth as defense. — This section conflicted with former 40-27-22, 1953 Comp. (repealed), stating cases in which truth was defense to charge of libel, and repealed the statute insofar as it limited pleading and giving in evidence of truth as defense in criminal libel suits. State v. Elder, 1914-NMSC-074, 19 N.M. 393, 143 P. 482.

Criminal contempt during criminal libel case may be pardoned. — Criminal contempt perpetrated while criminal libel case is before court is subject to pardoning power of governor. State v. Magee Publ’g Co., 1924-NMSC-023, 29 N.M. 455, 224 P. 1028, 38 A.L.R. 142, overruled in part, State v. Morris, 1965-NMSC-113, 75 N.M. 475, 406 P.2d 349.

The right of a teacher or school employee to express his views is protected by constitutional guarantee to the extent that such is not detrimental to the employing school system and is not an open, willful refusal of a teacher to obey the reasonable rules and regulations of his or her employing board of education. 1964 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 64-47.

Within limits. — A public school teacher has a constitutional right to publish his ideas or opinions, sign petitions or speak his views, and such does not constitute cause for dismissal, violation of contract or insubordination unless such conduct clearly is demonstrated and found to actually amount to a disobedience of reasonable school policies, regulations, orders or rules, or such conduct amounts in fact to a rebellious, mutinous or disobedient action contrary to the best interests of the public school system. 1964 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 64-47.

Law reviews. — For article, "Love Lust in New Mexico and the Emerging Law of Obscenity," see 10 Nat. Resources J. 339 (1970).

For comment, "Official Symbols: Use and Abuse," see 1 N.M. L. Rev. 352 (1971).

For comment, "The Freedom of the Press vs. The Confidentiality Provisions in the New Mexico Children's Code," see 4 N.M. L. Rev. 119 (1973).

For note, "Constitutional Law - Regulating Nude Dancing in Liquor Establishments - The Preferred Position of the Twenty-First Amendment - Nall v. Baca," see 12 N.M. L. Rev. 611 (1982).

For article, "Survey of New Mexico Law, 1982-83: Constitutional Law," see 14 N.M. L. Rev. 77 (1984).

For article, "Defamation in New Mexico," see 14 N.M. L. Rev. 321 (1984).

For comment, "Procedural and Substantive Rights to the Media Govern Requests to Restrict News Coverage of Criminal Cases: State ex rel. New Mexico Press Ass'n v. Kaufman," see 14 N.M. L. Rev. 401 (1984).

For opinion, "The Development of Modern Libel Law: A Philosophic Analysis," see 16 N.M. L. Rev. 183 (1986).

For article, "University Anti-Discrimination Codes v. Free Speech," see 23 N.M. L. Rev. 169 (1993).

For note, "The Expansion of the Obscenity Doctrine in New Mexico; Is it Tolerable? City of Farmington v. Fawcett," see 24 N.M. L. Rev. 505 (1994).

For article, "Are There Any Limits on Judicial Candidates' Political Speech after Republican Party of Minnesota v. White?", see 33 N.M. L. Rev. 449 (2003 ).

For article, "Freedom of Speech and Freedom form Student-on-Student Sexual Harrassment in Public Schools: The Nexus between Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District and Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education", see 33 N.M. L. Rev. 533 (2003 ).

For article, "Overbreadth Outside the First Amendment", see 34 N.M. L. Rev. 53 (2004).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 16A Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law §§ 496 to 525; 50 Am. Jur. 2d Libel and Slander § 532.

Validity of municipal regulation of solicitation of magazine subscriptions, 9 A.L.R.2d 728.

Public regulation and prohibition of sound amplifiers or loudspeaker broadcasts in streets and other public places, 10 A.L.R.2d 627.

Validity of governmental requirement of oath of allegiance or loyalty, 18 A.L.R.2d 268.

Constitutional right to freedom of speech as violated by conviction for disorderly conduct based on failure or refusal to obey police officer's order to move on, on street, 65 A.L.R.2d 1152.

Use of school property for other than public school or religious purposes, 94 A.L.R.2d 1274.

Modern concept of obscenity, 5 A.L.R.3d 1158.

Participation of student in demonstration on or near campus as warranting imposition of criminal liability for breach of peace, disorderly conduct, trespass, unlawful assembly or similar offense, 32 A.L.R.3d 551.

Validity of blasphemy statutes or ordinances, 41 A.L.R.3d 519.

Peaceful picketing of private residence, 42 A.L.R.3d 1353.

Right of accused to have press or other media representatives excluded from criminal trial, 49 A.L.R.3d 1007.

Picketing court or judge as contempt, 58 A.L.R.3d 1297.

Consumer picketing to protest products, prices or services, 62 A.L.R.3d 227.

Validity, construction, and effect of statutes or ordinances prohibiting the sale of obscene materials to minors, 93 A.L.R.3d 297.

Actionability of false newspaper report that plaintiff has been arrested, 93 A.L.R.3d 625.

Libel by newspaper headlines, 95 A.L.R.3d 660.

Privilege of newsgatherer against disclosure of confidential sources or information, 99 A.L.R.3d 37.

Gesture as punishable obscenity, 99 A.L.R.3d 762.

Propriety of conditioning probation on defendant's not associating with particular person, 99 A.L.R.3d 967.

Rights of attorneys leaving firm with respect to firm clients, 1 A.L.R.4th 1164.

Validity of statutes or ordinances requiring sex-oriented businesses to obtain operating licenses, 8 A.L.R.4th 130.

Validity and construction of statutes or ordinances prohibiting or restricting distribution of commercial advertising to private residences - modern cases, 12 A.L.R.4th 851.

Validity, propriety, and effect of allowing or prohibiting media's broadcasting, recording, or photographing court proceedings, 14 A.L.R.4th 121.

Insulting words addressed directly to police officer as breach of peace or disorderly conduct, 14 A.L.R.4th 1252.

Liability of commercial printer for defamatory statement contained in matter printed for another, 16 A.L.R.4th 1372.

Liability for personal injury or death allegedly resulting from television or radio broadcast, 20 A.L.R.4th 327.

Libel and slander: reports of pleadings as within privilege for reports of judicial proceedings, 20 A.L.R.4th 576.

Validity, construction, and effect of statutes, ordinances, or regulations prohibiting or regulating advertising of intoxicating liquors, 20 A.L.R.4th 600.

Libel and slander: attorneys' statements, to parties other than alleged defamed party or its agents, in course of extrajudicial investigation or preparation relating to pending or anticipated civil litigation as privileged, 23 A.L.R.4th 932.

Defamation: loss of employer's qualified privilege to publish employee's work record or qualification, 24 A.L.R.4th 144.

Validity and application of statute authorizing forfeiture of use or closure of real property from which obscene materials have been disseminated or exhibited, 25 A.L.R.4th 395.

State constitutional protection of allegedly defamatory statements regarding private individual, 33 A.L.R.4th 212.

Libel and slander: privileged nature of statements or utterances by members of governing body of public institution of higher learning in course of official proceedings, 33 A.L.R.4th 632.

Validity and construction of terroristic threat statutes, 45 A.L.R.4th 949.

Defamation: who is "libel-proof," 50 A.L.R.4th 1257.

Validity and construction of state court's order precluding publicity or comment about pending civil case by counsel, parties, or witnesses, 56 A.L.R.4th 1214.

False light invasion of privacy - Cognizability and elements, 57 A.L.R.4th 22.

False light invasion of privacy - Defenses and remedies, 57 A.L.R.4th 244.

Imputation of criminal, abnormal, or otherwise offensive sexual attitude or behavior as defamation - post-New York Times cases, 57 A.L.R.4th 404.

Libel or slander: Defamation by statement made in jest, 57 A.L.R.4th 520.

Intrusion by news-gathering entity as invasion of right of privacy, 69 A.L.R.4th 1059.

Standing of media representatives or organizations to seek review of, or to intervene to oppose, order closing criminal proceedings to public, 74 A.L.R.4th 476.

Search and seizure of telephone company records pertaining to subscriber as violation of subscriber's constitutional rights, 76 A.L.R.4th 536.

Validity of ordinances restricting location of "adult entertainment" or sex-oriented businesses, 10 A.L.R.5th 538.

Validity and construction of statutes prohibiting harassment of hunters, fishermen, or trappers, 17 A.L.R.5th 837.

Who is "public figure" for purposes of defamation action, 19 A.L.R.5th 1.

Validity, construction, and effect of "hate crimes" statutes, "ethnic intimidation" statutes, or the like, 22 A.L.R.5th 261.

Propriety of exclusion of press or other media representatives from civil trial, 39 A.L.R.5th 103.

Propriety of publishing identity of sexual assault victim, 40 A.L.R.5th 787.

Validity, construction, and application of state statutes or ordinances regulating sexual performance by child, 42 A.L.R.5th 291.

Who is "public official" for purposes of defamation action, 44 A.L.R.5th 193.

Libel and slander: charging one with breach or nonperformance of contract, 45 A.L.R.5th 739.

Validity, under state constitutions, of private shopping center's prohibition or regulation of political, social, or religious expression or activity, 52 A.L.R. 5th 195.

Defamation: publication of letter to editor in newspaper as actionable, 54 A.L.R.5th 443.

Validity of regulation by public-school authorities as to clothes or personal appearance of pupils, 58 A.L.R.5th 1.

Admissibility of evidence of public-opinion polls or surveys in obscenity prosecutions on issue whether materials in question are obscene, 59 A.L.R.5th 749.

Search and seizure: reasonable expectation of privacy in driveways, 60 A.L.R.5th 1.

First Amendment protection afforded to commercial and home video games, 106 A.L.R.5th 337.

Defamation of member of clergy, 108 A.L.R.5th 495, §§ 8-10

Defamation of church member by church official, 109 A.L.R.5th 541.

Right of press, in criminal proceeding, to have access to exhibits, transcripts, testimony, and communications not admitted in evidence or made part of public record, 39 A.L.R. Fed. 871.

Validity, under First Amendment and 42 USC § 1983, of public college or university's refusal to grant formal recognition to, or permit meetings of, student homosexual organizations on campus, 50 A.L.R. Fed. 516.

Prohibition of federal agency's keeping of records on methods of individual exercise of First Amendment rights, under Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USC § 552a(e)(7)), 63 A.L.R. Fed. 674.

Access of public to broadcast facilities under first amendment, 66 A.L.R. Fed. 628.

Action under 42 USC § 1985(1) for conspiracy to defame or otherwise harm the reputation of federal official, 69 A.L.R. Fed. 913.

What oral statement of student is sufficiently disruptive so as to fall beyond protection of First Amendment, 76 A.L.R. Fed. 599.

Constitutionality of teaching or suppressing teaching of Biblical creationism or Darwinian evolution theory in public schools, 102 A.L.R. Fed. 537.

Constitutionality of teaching or otherwise promoting secular humanism in public schools, 103 A.L.R. Fed. 538.

First amendment protection for law enforcement employees subject to discharge, transfer, or discipline because of speech, 109 A.L.R. Fed. 9

What is "record" within meaning of Privacy Act of 1974 (5 USCS § 552a), 121 A.L.R. Fed. 465.

Protection of commercial speech under first amendment - Supreme Court cases, 164 A.L.R. Fed. 1

16B C.J.S. Constitutional Law §§§ 539 to 611; 53 C.J.S. Libel and Slander § 9.