from behind the bench in the robe is protected by the First Amendment, even if his use of the trappings of judicial office were notprotected by First Amendment); Halleck v. Berlinger, 427 F. Supp. 1225, 1241 (D.D.C. 1977) (applying the First Amendment in disciplinary proceeding to comments made from the bench, but finding the particular comments outside of its protection); Mississippi Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Boland, 975 So.2d 882, 891-92 (Miss. 2008) (applying First Amendment to ajudge acting in her “capacity as a justice court judge” at a conference seeking certification to start a drug court, but held that First Amendment did not apply because judge’s insulting comments were not matters of “legitimate public concern.”); In re Rome, 218 Kan. 198, 542 P.2d 676, 684 (1975) (<HOLDING>). 11 As indicated in the Gentile syllabus,
holding that free speech protection of new jersey constitution requires subject to reasonable restrictions privatelyowned shopping centers to permit speech on political and societal issues on premises unlike first amendment of federal constitution recognizing that code is speech holding that first amendment protections apply to compelled speech as well as restrictions on speech holding that although ajudge has the right of free speech any restrictions placed by the code of professional responsibility are acceptable limits and prevent the first amendment from exempting a judge from discipline for proven judicial misconduct holding that the first amendment limits judicial discretion to seal documents in a civil case