Vanderbilt Law Review


Lee Goldman

First Page



This Article attempts to provide the appropriate constitutional analysis of restrictions on nonpicketing labor publicity. Part II describes the relevant statute and illustrative cases, including the Supreme Court's DeBartolo decision, that have raised but not resolved the first amendment issues concerning nonpicketing labor publicity. The cases focus attention on two restrictions the courts have imposed on nonpicketing labor publicity-the "producer-distributor" and the "for the purpose of" requirements. Part III analyzes the protected status of the nonpicketing labor speech by comparing nonpicketing labor publicity with labor picketing and commercial speech-two areas that bear superficial similarity to nonpicketing labor publicity and that do not receive full first amendment protection. Demonstrating that the justifications for restrictions on labor picketing and commercial speech are not applicable to nonpicketing labor publicity and that nonpicketing labor publicity satisfies traditional first amendment values, this Article reasons that nonpicketing labor publicity should trigger full first amendment protection. Part IV identifies the possible government interests in the "for the purpose of" and "producer-distributor" requirements and shows that because these interests do not justify the infringements on nonpicketing labor publicity the requirements are unconstitutional. Finally, the Article in Part V concludes by recommending a less restrictive alternative that allows more, not less, speech and that equally can serve the government's interest.