Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

McNary v. Carlton

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided September 8, 1975No. 58371Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSeiler, Chief Justice

I respectfully dissent. I would reverse outright. As I attempted to point out in my dissent in Kansas City v. O’Connor, 510 S.W.2d 689, 698 (Mo. banc 1974), we have a strong freedom of speech clause in our Missouri Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 8. It provides: “That no law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech, no matter by what means communicated; that every person shall be free to say, write or publish, or otherwise communicate whatever he will on' any subject, being responsible for all abuses of that liberty . . .”

As I said in the O’Connor case, supra, “The spirit of this clause of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Miller v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Paris Adult Theatre I v. SlatonSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  3. Kansas City v. O'CONNORSupreme Court of Missouri · 1974
  4. S. S. & W., Inc. v. Kansas CitySupreme Court of Missouri · 1974

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API