Background
Michael Jackson, a retired West Virginia law-enforcement officer, brought putative class actions against Whitepages and several other companies that operated online people-search services. He alleged that the companies violated West Virginia’s Daniel’s Law, W. Va. Code § 5A-8-24(e), by making his home address and unpublished telephone number—and similar information about thousands of other protected officials—available without permission.
Daniel’s Law prohibited disclosure of protected officials’ home addresses and unpublished telephone numbers when a reasonable person would believe the disclosure exposed someone to harassment or risk of harm. It imposed liability without requiring the publisher to know that the information concerned a protected person and without requiring the protected person first to request removal. The district court held the provision facially unconstitutional and dismissed Jackson’s complaints.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. It held that publishing addresses and telephone numbers constitutes speech protected by the First Amendment and that Daniel’s Law was content based because its application depended on both the kind of information disclosed and whether the subject was a judicial or law-enforcement official. Strict scrutiny therefore applied.
The court agreed that protecting judicial and law-enforcement officials is a compelling governmental interest, but held that the provision was not narrowly tailored. Because liability attached without notice or knowledge, publishers could be liable for unknowingly including protected officials in otherwise lawful directories, encouraging broad self-censorship. The court emphasized that a notice requirement was one possible way to narrow the law, though not necessarily the only one.
The court rejected Jackson’s attempts to avoid strict scrutiny, including arguments that the law regulated data rather than speech, fit within confidentiality or truthful-publication doctrines, or governed commercial speech. Because the provision applied to commercial and noncommercial speech alike, the commercial-speech framework did not control.
Key Takeaways
- Home addresses and telephone numbers are factual data, but their disclosure is speech protected by the First Amendment.
- A law that restricts specified information only when it concerns specified public officials is content based and subject to strict scrutiny.
- West Virginia’s provision failed strict scrutiny because liability could attach without notice or knowledge, making it broader than necessary to protect officials.
Why It Matters
The decision recognizes the government’s compelling interest in protecting judges, prosecutors, defenders, and law-enforcement officers while requiring laws restricting publication of their personal information to use the least speech-restrictive means available. Legislatures drafting judicial-security and privacy laws may need safeguards such as notice-and-removal procedures or other limits that reduce liability for inadvertent disclosures.
The ruling does not hold that Daniel’s Laws are categorically unconstitutional. It addresses West Virginia’s particular provision and rests on its breadth, especially the absence of a notice or knowledge requirement.