Opinion ID: 1758822
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Texas Constitution's Article I, Section 8

Text: Finally, we must consider whether the Act is unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution. Although Barber raised this issue in the court of appeals, that court did not resolve the question because it concluded that the Act violated Barber's federal constitutional rights. He raises that same issue here. Because we have concluded that the Act does not violate Barber's First Amendment rights, we address whether the Act violates Barber's rights under the Texas Constitution. The Texas Constitution provides, in relevant part: Every person shall be at liberty to speak, write or publish his opinions on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege; and no law shall ever be passed curtailing the liberty of speech or of the press.... [111] In Operation Rescue-National v. Planned Parenthood of Houston & Southeast Texas, Inc., this Court held: It is possible that Article I, Section 8 may be more protective of speech in some instances than the First Amendment,... but if it is, it must be because of the text, history, and purpose of the provision, not just simply because. Starting from the premise that the state constitutional provision must be more protective than its federal counterpart illegitimizes any effort to determine state constitutional standards. To define the protections of Article I, Section 8 simply as one notch above First Amendment protections is to deny state constitutional guarantees any principled moorings whatever. We reject this approach. [112] And in Ex Parte Tucci, Chief Justice Phillips explored in his concurring opinion the history and adoption of Article I, section 8. [113] He concluded that when there is no prior restraint, nothing in the language or purpose of [section 8] authorizes us to abandon the notion of accommodating competing interests ... or even to afford greater weight in the balancing of interests to free expression than we would under the First Amendment.... [114] Here, Barber has not articulated any reasons based on the text, history, and purpose of Article I, section 8 to show that its protection of noncommercial speech is broader than that provided by the First Amendment under the circumstances presented. Accordingly, we decline to hold that the Texas Constitution affords Barber greater rights than does the First Amendment.