People v. Eybergen

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• deemphasizing Boston’s scheduling and administrative role, instead focusing on the city’s lack of “con- trol over the flags’ content and meaning”
• drawing the “history of the expression” factor from Summum and Walker
• “The boundary between government speech and private expression can blur when . . . a government invites the people to participate in a program.”
• “Our review is not mechanical; it is driven by a case’s context rather than the rote application of rigid factors.”
• “[I]t is Boston’s control over the flags’ content and meaning that here is key; that type of control would indicate that Boston meant to convey the flags’ messages.”
• “[G]overnment speech in the literal sense is not exempt from First Amendment attack if it uses a means that restricts private expression in a way that ‘abridges’ 3d 1310, 1325 (M.D. Ala. 2019

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).