Freedom of speech and publication. Text of the section: current and prior versions.

Every citing reference in the corpus: 17 court opinions and 3 Attorney General opinions. Counts include the section's pre-1981 designation (§ 9), era-gated by the renumbering crosswalk.

Generated from the citation graph of the validated corpus. Treatment groupings (construing / citing / recital) are heuristic reading aids, not editorial judgments — read the opinion before relying on any signal.

Topics are machine-generated groupings of the citing references — reading aids, not editorial judgments. Documents cited after the last classification pass appear in the lists below until the next pass.

• Killoran, et al. v. Kaler, 2025 ND 64 (2025, Bahr, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 17: “…Under the North Dakota Constitution, every person "may freely write, speak and publish his opinions on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege." N.D. Const. art. I, § 4. Every person also has the right of protection from defamation. N.D.C.C. § 14-02-01. Defamation consists of slander and libel. N.D.C.C. § 14-02-02. "Slander is a false and unprivileged publication other than libel" that…”
• Bolinske v. Sandstrom, et al., 2022 ND 148 (2022, Tufte, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 20: “…In North Dakota, every person "may freely write, speak and publish his opinions on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege." N.D. Const. art. I, § 4. Every person has the right to be protected from defamation, which includes either libel or slander. N.D.C.C. §§ 14-02-01, 14-02-02. "Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing ... which exposes any person…”
• Schmitt v. MeritCare Health System, et al., 2013 ND 136 (2013, Sandstrom, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 11: “…Under N.D. Const. art. I, § 4, every person "may freely write, speak and publish his opinions on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege." *See, e.g., Moritz v. Medical Arts Clinic, P.C.,* 315 N.W.2d 458, 459 (N.D. 1982). E…”
• Riemers v. Mahar, 2008 ND 95 (2008, Crothers, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 13: “…"Every [person] may freely write, speak and publish his opinions on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege." N.D. Const. Art. I, § 4. However, "[e]very person, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, has the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to the person'…”
• Bertsch, et al. v. Duemeland, et al. (cross-ref. w/20040055), 2002 ND 32 (2002, Sandstrom, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 11: “…Under N.D. Const. art. I, § 4, every person "may freely write, speak and publish his opinions on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege." *See, e.g., Moritz v. Medical Arts Clinic, P.C.,* 315 N.W.2d 458, 459-60 (N.D. 1982)…”
• Meyerle v. Pioneer Publishing Co., 1920 ND 88 (1920, Birdzell, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…such damage as he can show he has sustained to his property, business, trade, profession, or occupation. The contention of the defendant that such damages refers only to special damages to his property, business, trade, profession, or occupation is erroneous. Section 9, N. D. Const., so far as applicable, provides: "Every man may freely write, speak and publish his opinions on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege." Again, section 22, N. D. Const., so far a…”

• State v. Montenegro, 2023 ND 198 (2023, per curiam)
• State v. Simon (consol. w/ 20170404), 2018 ND 197 (2018, Tufte, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 17: “…*A.R.*, 2010 ND 84 , ¶ 9, 781 N.W.2d 644 . Moreover, the North Dakota Constitution similarly provides, "Every man may freely write, speak, and publish his opinions on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege." N.D. Const. art. I, § 4. Those provisions generally prohibit the government from proscribing speech based on disapproval of its content. *Svedberg v. Stamness*, 525 N.W.2d 678 , 682 (N.D. 1994).…”
• Interest of A.R., 2010 ND 84 (2010, Maring, J.) · quotes the provision
  • ¶ 9: “…York,*268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925). The free speech provision of the North Dakota Constitution similarly provides, "Every man may freely write, speak and publish his opinions on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that privilege." N.D. Const. art. I, § 4. However, limitations exist to free speech. *See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire,*315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942) (explaining that lewd, obscene, profane, li[*649] belous, insulting or fighting words are not protected).…”
• McCrothers Corp., et al. v. City of Mandan, 2007 ND 28 (2007, VandeWalle, J.)
• State v. Backlund, 2003 ND 184 (2003, Kapsner, J.)
• State v. North Dakota Education Ass'n, 1978 ND 17 (1978, Vogel, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…; (4) that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on culpability; (5) that the court erred in failing to define “newspaper”; and (6) that the statute is unconstitutional as violative of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Section 9 of the Constitution of the State of North Dakota relating to freedom of speech.1 1 “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom…”

• State v. Bartkowski, 1980 ND 6 (1980, Pederson, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…It is thus an anomaly that Bartkowski should argue that the failure to require a special verdict affected his substantial rights and, therefore, constituted obvious error. Rule 31(e), NDRCrimP, has not heretofore been the subject of any appeal to this court. Section 9 of the North Dakota Constitution, which involves civil and criminal trials for libel, specifies in part: “and the jury shall have the same power of giving a general verdict as in other cases.” (Emphasis added.) That may…”
• Martinson v. Freeberg, 1921 ND 35 (1921, Birdzell, J.)
• State v. Tolley, 1912 ND 60 (1912, Fisk, J.) · quotes the provision
  • “…is also challenged, but we are agreed that the evidence is amply sufficient. The record discloses that appellant was accorded a fair and impartial trial, and that there is no error prejudicial to his substantial rights. But one other matter will be noticed. Section 9 of our Constitution provides that in all civil and criminal trials for libel "the jury shall have the same power of giving a general verdict as in other cases; and in all indictments or informations for libels the jury…”

• Snortland v. Crawford, 1981 ND 91 (1981, Paulson, J.)
• Farmers Educational & Cooperative Union of America v. WDAY, Inc., 1958 ND 19 (1958, Sathre, J.)

• N.D. Att'y Gen.: N.D. Op. Att'y Gen. 2021-L-02 (2021)
• N.D. Att'y Gen.: N.D. Op. Att'y Gen. 2004-L-75 (2004)
• N.D. Att'y Gen.: N.D. Op. Att'y Gen. 64-189 (1964)

The sidebar keeps a curated digest; this page is the complete record.