No. DM-0064 (1991).

• Case Date: December 09, 1991
• Court: Texas

Texas Attorney General Opinions 1991. No. DM-0064 (1991). December 9, 1991Opinion No. DM-64Morales Opinion No. DM-064 Office of the Attorney General State of TexasMr. Joe E. MilnerDirectorTexas Department of Public SafetyP.O. Box 4087Austin, Texas 78773-0001SYLLABUS: 1991-0064Re: Whether the Texas Krishnas may distribute religious literature on Department of Public Safety property (RQ-68)Dear Mr. Milner: You have asked whether religious groups may distribute religious literature and solicit donations on property of the Department of Public Safety (the "department"). You inform us that the department has received a request from the Texas Krishnas for "clarification of the parameters within which our religious organization's volunteers can from time to time distribute religious literatures... and receive donations" on the department's property. You ask us to address this issue both in light of article V, section 83, of the current Appropriations Act, which prohibits the use of state property for private purposes, and the first amendment of the United States Constitution. We turn first to your query regarding the United States Constitution. (fn1) The first amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech...." This prohibition is equally applicable to the states, and applies to the department as an entity of the State of Texas. See Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927); L. TRIBE, AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW Sect. 11-2 at 567- 69 (1978). (fn2) You suggest that distribution of literature and solicitation of funds are activities that are not protected by the first amendment. We disagree. It is clearly established that distribution literature is an expressive activity protected by the first amendment. See United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 176-77 (1983) (citing cases). Charitable solicitation of funds and the distribution of written materials in exchange for contributions or gifts have also been recognized as forms of protected speech. See, e.g., Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 797-98 (1985) (citing cases); Heffron v. International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness, 452 U.S. 640, 647 (1981) (citing cases). Indeed, the Unites States Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed that solicitation is a form of speech protected by the first amendment. See United States v. Kokinda, 110 S. Ct. 3115, 3118, 3126 (1990). (fn3) The right to engage in these forms of speech, however, is not absolute: Nothing in the Constitution requires the Government freely to grant access to all who wish to exercise their right to free speech on every...