Free speech in California

An absolute right to say, post or write about anything one wants has never existed. If a HOA attempts to punish someone for statements the person makes about the HOA, then the grounds had better be corporate (or director) defamation or some other grounds that have been long recognized as exceptions to the constitutional protections of free speech.

If a HOA refuses to publish an owner's statements, then this is not censorship. This is its right as a corporation, just as the New York Times has the right to reject submissions for publication on its Op-Ed and other pages.

If a HOA fines someone for saying things to the HOA manager or a HOA vendor, this may very well be legal under the Constitution and the HOA's covenants.

If a HOA fines someone for flying a certain flag or display a certain sign in a window, then statutes sometimes address this and sometimes do not address this. It depends on the flag. There is no absolute, universal legal right of owners in HOAs to fly any flag, or display any sign, the owers want.

Even if a HOA allows flags, a flag with say, KKK symbols on it would undoubtedly IMO violate fair housing laws on allowing a hostile environment on the basis of race. A HOA would likely be in its rights, and arguably has a duty to, require removal of the KKK flag on Fair Housing Act grounds and 14th amendment grounds.

Can a HOA restrict speech by owners at https://www.davis-stirling.com/HOME/H/HOA-Board-Meeting-Open-Forum meetings, during the open forum segment? The D-S site's attorneys say yes, within reason.

I am sorry Terri phrased her contention as though it were law instead of her opinion. This only confuses readers who come here, possibly eager to harass or defame the corporation or directors; or maybe eager to create a hostile environment to those who are disabled, not the "right race," or not the "right religion"; or perhaps wanting to incite violence against a director or owner.

I should have added that private entities often have the right to censor speech. It's why websites can remove user posts that violate the terms of service or remove those users altogether for repeated violations.

Our attorneys told us that if we insisted on allowing homeowners to post on association-owned platforms, we had to have robust terms of service that users had to agree to in order to have an account. We also had to strictly enforce these terms, which is a time consuming pain in the hiney. Otherwise, the association could be held liable for homeowners' intemperate speech, and that could get expensive for everyone (for example, online harassment that results in a Fair Housing complaint).

I quoted the entire law that applies to every person. The rest of the section relates to media and persons related to media. This is important for Californians to know since it's often advertised that free speech isn't guaranteed in HOAs. But it is in California. I think abuses are the exception and not the rule. Criticism of a board by itself isn't abuse of the right to free speech in fact it is guaranteed in the Davis-Stirling Act.

I copied and pasted the language. Next time I'll post the link. Thanks.