## Facts

- Los Angeles Municipal Code § 28.06 barred distribution of any handbill unless it printed the name and address of the person who prepared it and the person who caused it to be distributed, including disclosure of responsible individuals behind any “fictitious” group name.
- Manuel D. Talley distributed leaflets in Los Angeles urging a boycott of certain merchants based on alleged discriminatory employment practices.
- The leaflets identified “National Consumers Mobilization” and listed a post office box and telephone number, but did not provide the name and address of a natural person.
- The parties stipulated that Talley distributed the handbills; a municipal court convicted him and imposed a $10 fine.
- The Appellate Department of the Superior Court affirmed, rejecting Talley’s First and Fourteenth Amendment challenge.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether an ordinance that categorically forbids distribution of any handbill lacking the names and addresses of its printer and distributor violates the freedoms of speech and press as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether compelled identification for all handbills, regardless of content or context, is an impermissibly broad restriction on anonymous pamphleteering.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed Talley’s conviction and held the ordinance unconstitutional on its face.
- The Court reasoned that the ordinance applied to all anonymous handbills “under all circumstances,” not just materials linked to fraud, obscenity, or unlawful advocacy.
- The Court recognized a long tradition of anonymous pamphleteering and concluded that compulsory disclosure can deter speech by exposing speakers to retaliation.
- Justice Harlan concurred in the result, emphasizing that the ordinance was invalid because it was not confined to narrowly defined governmental interests such as fraud prevention.
- Justice Clark, joined by Justices Frankfurter and Whittaker, dissented, viewing the measure as an identification requirement rather than a prohibition and finding insufficient showing of threatened harm from disclosure.

## Legal Principles

- Anonymous pamphleteering is protected expression under the First Amendment, applicable to state and local government through the Fourteenth Amendment.
- A blanket requirement that all handbills include identifying names and addresses is facially invalid when it broadly burdens anonymous speech without limitation to specific harms.
- Government interests in preventing fraud, libel, obscenity, or similar wrongs do not justify an across-the-board identification mandate; any regulation must be materially narrower than a categorical ban on anonymity.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Los Angeles’s sweeping handbill identification ordinance because it broadly compelled disclosure for all pamphleteering and therefore unconstitutionally burdened anonymous advocacy protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.


Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)