prohibits the use of the criminal contempt power against speech except in cases presenting a clear and present danger of obstructing the administration of justice.” (J.A. 1438.) Unfortunately, it is not clear on what basis the Special Master arrived at these conclusions. Significantly, the December 22, 2010 Recommendation does not acknowledge that this Court, in its July 16, 2010 Order, had adopted the Special Master’s previous recommendation that the statements in the July 7, 2009 Opinion were not protected by the First Amendment, and, consequently, held that the People were not required to meet the “clear and present danger” standard or to otherwise prove that issuance of the July 7, 2009 Opinion caused an actual delay in the Ford matter or actually destroyed the p 9-30 (1994) (<HOLDING>). However, Kendall did not make these
holding judges letter to the editor advocating against gay rights constituted speech fully protected by the first amendment holding judges offensive comments made on television show fully protected by first amendment holding that comments made by deputy sheriff as president of sheriffs union were prima facie protected by the first amendment as a contribution to political debate holding first amendment claim requires actual protected conduct holding that private possession of child pornography is not protected by the first amendment