Thompson v. United States
414 U.S. 918
SCOTUS
1973
Check Treatment

THOMPSON v. UNITED STATES

No. 72-1498

C. A. 7th Cir.

412 U.S. 918

“truth.” “Under such a rule, would-be critics of official conduct may be deterred from voicing their criticism, even though it is believed to be true and even though it is in fact true, because of doubt whether it can be proved in court or fear of the expense of having to do so. They tend to make only statements which ‘steer far wider of the unlawful zone.’ . . . The rule thus dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate. It is inconsistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Ibid. Songs play no less a role in public debate, whether they eulogize the John Brown of the abolitionist movement, or the Joe Hill of the union movement, provide a rallying cry such as “We Shall Overcome,” or express in music the values of the youthful “counterculture.” The Government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, require a broadcaster to censor its music any more than it can require a newspaper to censor the stories of its reporters. Under our system the Government is not to decide what messages, spoken or in music, are of the proper “social value” to reach the people.

I dissent.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART would grant certiorari and set case for oral argument.

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, dissenting.

The petitioner here was convicted in District Court of conspiring to transport forged securities in interstate commerce, 18 U. S. C. § 2314, and of aiding and abetting the substantive crime. The trial judge‘s instruction to the jury did not clearly require that it find that defendant had knowledge of the interstate character of the transaction. Regardless of whether the substantive count requires such knowledge, it seems clear that the conspiracy offense would. See the opinion of Judge Learned Hand in

. Moreover, here as in
, we deal with an offense traditionally treated as a local law question; it becomes federal only through the nexus with interstate commerce. See my dissenting opinion in
. Proof of that nexus is therefore required for conviction. I would grant certiorari.

ALO v. UNITED STATES

No. 72-1550

C. A. 2d Cir.

412 U.S. 919

MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL concur, dissenting.

In 1969 the petitioner was indicted for obstructing an investigation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and he was convicted by a jury. Both in pretrial motions and on appeal the defendant insisted that the Government had obtained an identical indictment in 1966 but had for some reason kept it secret, and that therefore there was a three-year post-indictment delay which denied the defendant his right to a speedy trial. The Government would not confirm or deny this allegation, and the defendant was unable to produce substantiating evidence. The conviction was affirmed, the Court of Appeals concluding that in any case no prejudice was shown by the defendant.

. The present proceeding arises from petitioner‘s motion to vacate sentence, based on newly discovered evidence confirming the petitioner‘s earlier suspicions and revealing motivations for the delay which the District Court found were “unworthy and discreditable.” The motion was denied, however, again for the reason that no prejudice had been shown, and the Court of Appeals again affirmed.

As revealed in part by a Justice Department memorandum made available to the District Court, the Govern-