188 N.E. 745 | NY | 1934
We held in People v. Smith (
Defendant, not having applied for a permit, has been convicted of expounding atheism in the street without such a permit. He now challenges the constitutionality of the ordinance as requiring permits for street speaking from exhorters of atheism and religion but not from *257 speakers on other topics. He asserts that it deprives him of the equal protection of the laws and of freedom of speech.
"It is too well settled by judicial decisions in both the State and Federal courts that a municipality may pass an ordinance making it unlawful to hold public meetings upon the public streets without a permit therefor to require discussion. The right to pass such ordinance is a valid exercise of legislative power, properly delegated to the municipal authorities." (Peopleex rel. Doyle v. Atwell,
This ordinance is not aimed against free speech. It is directed towards the manner in which the street may be used. (Commonwealth v. Davis,
If a reasonable difference may be found between classes of those who may have permits for street speaking and those who are not required to have such permits the courts will not upset the legislative classification. (Miller v. Wilson,
The judgment should be affirmed.
CRANE, LEHMAN, KELLOGG, O'BRIEN, HUBBS and CROUCH, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed. *258