Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 836.11 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 836.11 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 836.11

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 836
DEFAMATION; LIBEL; THREATENING LETTERS AND SIMILAR OFFENSES
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 836.11
836.11 Publications which tend to expose persons to hatred, contempt, or ridicule prohibited.
(1) It shall be unlawful to print, publish, distribute or cause to be printed, published or distributed by any means, or in any manner whatsoever, any publication, handbill, dodger, circular, booklet, pamphlet, leaflet, card, sticker, periodical, literature, paper or other printed material which tends to expose any individual or any religious group to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy unless the following is clearly printed or written thereon:
(a) The true name and post office address of the person, firm, partnership, corporation or organization causing the same to be printed, published or distributed; and,
(b) If such name is that of a firm, corporation or organization, the name and post office address of the individual acting in its behalf in causing such printing, publication or distribution.
(2) Any person, firm or corporation violating any of the sections of this statute shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
History.ss. 1, 2, ch. 22744, 1945; s. 996, ch. 71-136.

F.S. 836.11 on Google Scholar

F.S. 836.11 on Casetext

Amendments to 836.11


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 836.11
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

S836.11 - CRIMES AGAINST PERSON - PUBLICATION EXPOSE PERSON HATRED CONTEMPT ETC - M: F



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

CUESTA, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI- DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA,, 285 F.3d 962 (11th Cir. 2002)

. . . . § 836.11, a misdemeanor that crimi nalizes the anonymous distribution of publications that “expose . . . telephone, who conferred with colleagues and agreed that there was probable cause to arrest under § 836.11 . . . Officer Alexander, together with Officer Galardi, looked through a book of statutes and found § 836.11 . . . The relevant portion of § 836.11 states: It shall be unlawful to print, publish, distribute or cause . . . Board's policy was not the moving force behind the arrest, there is no need for us to address whether § 836.11 . . .

STATE v. SHANK,, 795 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

. . . appeals the county court’s dismissal of an information charging appellee with a violation of section 836.11 . . . a detective that he wrote the letter, appellee was arrested and charged with a violation of section 836.11 . . . Section 836.11 is not content-neutral. . . . Overbreadth We also agree with the trial court that section 836.11 is unconstitutionally overbroad. . . . Section 836.11 not only impacts proscribable speech, it also profoundly impacts speech that is clearly . . .

APPLE CORPS LIMITED, MPL As v. INTERNATIONAL COLLECTORS SOCIETY, E. L. B. E., 25 F. Supp. 2d 480 (D.N.J. 1998)

. . . fees and $109.29 in out-of-pocket expenses; and Shapiro & Croland: $1,558.00 in attorneys’ fees and $836.11 . . . Tolls and Parking: $ 24.28 $0 Fax and telephone: $ 39.00 $0 Miscellaneous: $ 12.95 $0 Total: $1,065.63 $836.11 . . .

In GOLDEN DISTRIBUTORS, LTD. GOLDEN DISTRIBUTORS, LTD. v. SAVE ALL TOBACCO, INC., 134 B.R. 770 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991)

. . . Eight checks totaling $86,-836.11 were returned to Golden by Marine Midland because the account lacked . . .

CORN CONSTRUCTION, INC. v. BROWARD COUNTY BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL,, 268 So. 2d 438 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1972)

. . . Sections 817.71 and 836.11, F.S.A. . . . seeking to enjoin appellees from exercising their right to free speech; and (3) that Sections 817.71 and 836.11 . . .

UNITED STATES MALPASS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, a v. SCOTLAND CONCRETE COMPANY, a a s a, 294 F. Supp. 1299 (E.D.N.C. 1968)

. . . No dispute exists as to the correctness of plaintiff’s claim of $2,-836.11. . . .