1-7. Freedom of Speech.
Wandering Dago, Inc. (WD), operates a food truck in Albany, New York. WD brands itself and the food it sells with language generally viewed as ethnic slurs. Own-ers Andrea Loguidice and Brandon Snooks, however, view the branding as giving a “nod to their Italian heritage” and “weak-ening the derogatory force of the slur.” Twice, WD applied to participate as a vendor in a summer lunch program in a state-owned plaza. Both times, the New York State Office of General Services (OGS) denied the application because of WD’s brand-ing. WD filed a suit in a federal district court against RoAnn Destito, the commissioner of OGS, contending that the agency had violated WD’s right to free speech.
What principles apply to the government’s regulation of the content of speech?
How do those principles apply in WD’s case? Explain. [Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, 879 F.3d 20 (2d Cir. 2018)1 (See Business and the Bill of Rights.)
