Opinion ID: 1350669
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: differences in language

Text: The majority does not address the second Gunwall criterion, other than to note that the language of Const. art. 1, § 5 and the first amendment to the United States Constitution differ. Majority, at 778. In fact, this court has consistently held in the most recent cases addressing this issue that the very different languages of the two constitutions require giving our constitution a broader interpretation. Bering v. Share, 106 Wn.2d 212, 245, 721 P.2d 918 (1986), cert. dismissed, 479 U.S. 1050, 93 L.Ed.2d 990, 107 S.Ct. 940 (1987); State v. Coe, 101 Wn.2d 364, 374, 679 P.2d 353 (1984); Alderwood Assocs. v. Washington Envtl. Coun., 96 Wn.2d 230, 635 P.2d 108 (1981). The United States Supreme Court has determined that obscenity does not fall under the free speech protection of the First Amendment. E.g., Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 37 L.Ed.2d 419, 93 S.Ct. 2607 (1973). Thus, under the United States Constitution, there is such a thing as unprotected speech. The Washington Constitution, on the other hand, leaves no room for unprotected speech to exist. It protects speech on all subjects. It is hard to imagine how the language of our constitution could be less unambiguous in its absolute protections of speech.