Tennessee city bans ‘blasphemous’ and ‘offensive’ pamphlets, First Amendment be damned

In Sparta, Tennessee, handing out flyers in support of the First Amendment could put you on the wrong side of the law. That’s what one Tennessee resident discovered when they looked into the city’s unconstitutional ordinances, hoping to hand out pamphlets discussing the importance of the separation of church and state.

Sparta’s municipal code bans distributing handbills that contain “blasphemous” language or material considered “offensive to public morals or decency.” The ordinance also prohibits speech that merely “tends” to cause disorder. Faced with those rules, the resident, who wishes to remain anonymous, worried such vague and overbroad terms could be used against them if they handed out pamphlets.

The Supreme Court has described such laws as “egregious” and among “the most serious and least tolerable infringement” of expressive rights. 

Tell Sparta’s Leaders: Repeal This Unconstitutional Speech Ban

At its core, the issue is straightforward: the government cannot punish speech simply because it offends people or criticizes religion.

The Supreme Court made that clear more than 70 years ago when it struck down a law allowing officials to ban “sacrilegious” films. The Court explained that the state cannot suppress expression simply because it offends religious beliefs.

The ordinance’s problems don’t stop there. Beyond the ban on “blasphemous” flyers, it also prohibits distributing material that “advocates disloyalty to or the overthrow of” the U.S. government. In other words, speech could be silenced simply because a city official finds it overly critical of the government. That’s classic viewpoint discrimination, one of the most serious forms of censorship under the First Amendment.

While it’s true that incitement is not protected, speech can only be punished as incitement if it is intended and likely to produce imminent lawless action. A ban on leaflets that advocate “disloyalty,” or even the overthrow of the government, without requiring intent and likelihood of imminent violence, falls far short of that standard. Otherwise, the government could suppress a wide range of political advocacy simply by claiming it could lead to violence or illegal activity.

The list of constitutional problems keeps growing. The ordinance also creates barriers to distributing any handbills in the first place. People who distribute handbills “for hire” must obtain a permit from city officials, meaning someone paid to hand out flyers — apparently including employees of nonprofit advocacy groups — will need government permission. Yet pamphleteering has been a core form of political advocacy since the nation’s founding. And the First Amendment’s protection doesn’t disappear just because someone is paid. Requiring prior approval risks turning a constitutional right into a government-issued privilege.

Sparta also bans anonymous handbills, requiring printed materials to include the “true” name and address of both the author and the distributor. The Supreme Court has shot down such requirements. The First Amendment protects anonymous speech, which has long allowed people to share controversial or unpopular ideas without fear of retaliation. The anonymity ban carries an especially steep cost for individual pamphleteers, who must publicize their home address and associate it with speech that may anger others.

Taken together, these rules don’t just restrict what people can say — they regulate whether someone can even engage in one of the oldest and most accessible ways Americans share ideas. Imagine all the speech the government could ban just by denying permission in the first place.  

The Supreme Court has repeatedly reinforced the same principles: the First Amendment protects the right to speak — even when doing so shocks, angers, or offends people.

That protection has covered everything from profanity used in political protest to burning the American flag. Free speech protects controversial ideas — not just widely accepted ones. Sparta’s ordinance conflicts directly with that principle. The law should reflect the Constitution.

The Supreme Court can clarify what the Constitution protects and stop the government from violating your rights. But unconstitutional city codes remain on the books across the country. Local governments have an obligation to fix them.

When outdated censorship laws remain on the books, they create a strange contradiction: the Constitution promises broad protection for free expression, but local laws still chill speech and threaten punishment for exercising one’s rights.

That’s why FIRE has stepped in. On March 3, we wrote to Sparta’s Board of Mayor and Aldermen, urging the city to repeal the unconstitutional provisions in its handbill ordinance.

The principle at stake goes far beyond pamphlets. The same freedom that protects someone handing out flyers the government doesn’t like also protects a person posting criticism online or speaking at a town meeting. 

For the Sparta resident who contacted FIRE, this issue isn’t theoretical. They simply want to distribute pamphlets expressing their views — one of the most basic forms of speech in a democratic society.

Yet the city’s ordinance makes them wonder whether doing so could bring legal trouble. No one in the United States should have to ask that question.

Sparta’s leaders must repeal these unconstitutional provisions and bring the city’s code into alignment with the First Amendment, because in America, the government doesn’t decide which ideas people are allowed to express — or whether they can express ideas at all.

The First Amendment already did.