*1 v. MARYLAND. NIEMOTKO NO. 17. January 15,
Argued 1950. Decided October *2 Hayden Covington C-. brief argued the cause filed for appellants. Proctor, C. of Attorney
Kenneth Assistant General him Maryland, argued appellee. the for cause With Hammond, the brief was Hall Attorney General. Mb. Chief opinion of Justice delivered the Vinson the Court.
Appellants two of religious group members the known Jehovah’s At invitation local Witnesses. the they coreligionists, scheduled Bible talks in the park the city Grace, Maryland. Although of Havre de no prohibiting there is ordinance regulating the use park, organizations this it been has the custom desiring individuals to use meetings it celebrations permits various kinds obtain from Park Com- the conformity practice, group missioner. with this the requested permission of Park the Commissioner for use park on four consecutive Sundays July, the June and permission 1949. This was refused.
Having been informed Flag Day ceremony Elks’ applicants was scheduled for the first the did Sunday, pursue request their for the use of the for that particular but, day, instead, filed a request written with City Council for following three Sundays. This appear- Mayor, suggestion filed at request there municipality custom that under ing from the action City Council to the appeal hearing held The Council Commissioner. Park hearing the At this was considered. request which the request attorney appeared. their applicants and denied. of the Council the decision awaiting they were
Because steps no further applicants took application, on their request, the denial of Sunday, but, after on the second Sunday. on the third meeting to hold their they proceeded opened meeting appellant Niemotko No sooner police, discourse, delivering his than and commenced Mayor, arrested park by ordered to the who had been *3 park on the fourth and meeting him. At held the the before appellant Kelley was arrested following Sunday, his lecture. began he brought trial before
Appellants subsequently were Mary- conduct under jury charge disorderly on a the Code, Flack’s Ann. disorderly land statute. Md. conduct Supp.), 1939 131. were con- (1947 They § Cum. Art. $25 fined and costs. Under the rather victed each unique Maryland procedure, jury judge the is the the 5; Const., XV, as Md. Art. see § law as well the facts. A. 11. This below,-Md.-,-, 71 2d opinion any normally appellate is no review means that there sufficiency on of the evidence. dependent question Appeals de- rule, the Court of Maryland on this Relying appellate power, under its normal to review the case clined stating certiorari, on and further declined take the case interest” not “matters that the issues were opinion that Being which made desirable to review. issues, we presented constitutional substantial case properly appeal being probable jurisdiction, noted (2). here under 28 U. S. C. 1257 §
271 In cases in which is a rights there claim of denial of under the Constitution, Federal this Court is not bound by will courts, conclusions lower but reexamine evidentiary basis which those conclusions are York, founded. See Feiner v. day, post, New decided this p. 315. A brief recital of facts were adduced they at this trial will show why suffice to these convictions cannot stand. At of the the time arrest each of these appellants, there was no disorder, evidence of threats of violence or riot. There was no indication that appellants conducted themselves a manner could public peace be considered as detrimental to the or order. contrary, positive On the there was testimony appellants each had conducted himself beyond reproach. a manner quite apparent any disorderly conduct which the found have jury must appellants been based on the using fact that were park permit, although, without a have we indicated no above, there is prohibiting statute ordinance use regulating permit. without This has many licensing sys- Court times examined the regulate tems which local use parks bodies of their York, See Kunz v. New places. decided this post, York, Saia v. New day, p. See also 334 U. S. O., Hague v. I. C. (1948); 558 307 S. 496 (1939); U. Griffin, Lovell (1938). U. S. those cases *4 Court this condemned statutes and ordinances re- which quired permits be that obtained from local officials prerequisite public a places, to the use of grounds the requirement prior that a license constituted restraint on freedom speech, press religion, of in the and, narrowly of drawn, absence reasonable and definite stand- for the be follow, ards officials to must See invalid. York, post, Kunz New In p. the instant case we pro- met with no or regulating ordinance statute hibiting of all park; the use here is is amor- permits grant to whereby all authority phous “practice,” Park Commissioner is in the park use for the of the no anywhere; appear standards Council. No City of this circumscribing limitations; no drawn narrowly community of the interest power; no substantial absolute said about all that has been is clear to be served. equally must be limitless discretion invalidity such here. applicable clarity up the wisdom with points utmost
This case abuse, which possibility Eor very doctrine. this Indeed, feared, occurred here. has decisions those earlier which shows this Court rarely any has been before case to refusal discrimination clearly an unwarranted so City Council held true that the such a license. It is issue we But application. it hearing considered the any valid in vain to discover the record have searched that the fact, Mayor In testified for the refusal. basis if, at the hear- permit granted have been probably would Park “berate” the had not ing, applicants started The permit. his to issue the Commissioner for refusal hearing per- at the only questions asked of the Witnesses alleged flag, to salute the their refusal tained to their unen- irrelevant Bible, on the and other issues views in- parks. conclusion is The cumbered use of the was denied because escapable that the use disagreement for or with the Council’s dislike City equal protection or their views. Witnesses speech of those freedoms of laws, the exercise (cid:127) Fourteenth religion protected by the First and than firmer foundation the whims Amendments, has opinions body. personal governing local Court, argued city is that state and officials this religious such, power groups, to exclude should have parks. But that this from the use possibly For whatever force this contention could case. Mayor testimony lost in the light have is *5 permits always the trial memory that within his been religious organizations Sunday-school issued for picnics. point might attempt also out that the to des- We ignate the park sanctuary quiet not own appellants, does not defeat these whose conduct disturbance, created no but more position this is also than slightly first inconsistent, since, Sunday on the here involved, Flag Day ceremony the situs for the of the Order of Elks. apparent thus lack becomes of standards “practice” license-issuing “practice” renders
prior restraint in contravention of Fourteenth Amend- ment, completely arbitrary and that and discrimina- tory grant permits refusal to equal denial of protection. Inasmuch as the basis convictions the lack of permits, and that inwas, turn, lack to due discussed, unconstitutional defects the convictions must fall.
Reversed. Mr. Justice Black concurs the result. Frankfurter, Mr. concurring Justice in the result.* living issues these cases concern law some aspects. its most delicate To smother differences of em- phasis and help development. nuance will its wise way may important When the result be reached to reached, respected results hereafter be law is best expression opinion. individual present upon These cases three variations a theme of great importance. Legislatures, authorities, local years the courts have for with grappled claims of the places in against disseminate ideas power of an in government keep claims effective York, case, post, p. 290, this No. Kunz v. New and No. *[In York, post, p. Feiner v. New 315.] *6 of a com- civilized other interests protect and to peace they of interest because special munity. These cases the prob- meet communities to attempts of three the show believe, I further will, ways. lem three different on one cross-lights the situations analysis to use three another.
I. Grace, Maryland, sought 1. 17 and 18.—Havre de Nos. park com- problem permitting its tangled to solve this city act as censors. The city and council to missioner including those meetings, for allowed of its use permit required. a religious groups, but custom representa- questioned council the case, city In this the a license, Witnesses, requested who tives Jehovah’s the the Catholic saluting flag, their views on about forces, other armed and matters the Church, service public order or convenience way in no related to Mayor supposed testified that he park. in use “because of matters were permit denied and brought meeting.” at When Niemotko out [the] they Witnesses, attempted speak, to Kelley, Jehovah’s no disturbing peace. There was were for arrested they and is clear were disturbance a permit. for want of arrested licensing system a City 2. York up No. 50.—New set public religious parks control the use of and its streets Appeals construed New York Court of services. The of the Police so city’s ordinance sanction for street- license revoke refuse Commissioner person likely to “ridicule” if he found the preaching hearings In after before religion. or “denounce” Commissioner, Kunz’s license Deputy Police Fourth “denounced” had “ridiculed” and was revoked he because of New York’s crowded speaking one religion while that he would continue centers, thought likely and it was to do so. 1948 he was refused license ground sole made determination In September of 1948 he speaking was arrested Columbus Circle without license.
3. No. did Syracuse, York, New aup set licens- 93.— ing system but on a relied statute which is in substance enactment of the common-law offense of breach peace. Feiner, defendant, speech made near the intersection South McBride and Harrison Streets in Syracuse. spoke He from a box parking located on the between the street, sidewalk use made *7 amplifiers sound A attached to an crowd automobile. to persons gathered 75 80 around and him, several pedestrians go highway to into in order to pass by. policemen Two In observed meeting. speech, course his Feiner Mayor referred to the Syracuse as a bum,” to “champagne-sipping the President as a and “bum,” Legion to the Gestapo American as “Nazi agents.” Feiner also indicated in an excited manner that did Negroes not and equal rights up should rise have in arms. His audience included a number Negroes.
One if get man indicated that did not speaker off the he would stand, crowd, do it himself. The which consisted of opposed both those who and those supported who the speaker, was restless. There not yet but, a disturbance in the arresting words of the officer story accepted whose “stepped the trial he judge, in to prevent fight. it from in a all resulting After there angry muttering and pushing.” Having ignored two requests stop speaking, Feiner was arrested.
II. Adjustment of the inevitable conflict free between and speech other interests a problem persistent is perplexing. important it is It is to bear in mind this Court can hope point way. set and limits and legislative administrative lot of bodies falls the frame of within practical to find solutions officials decisions, many There are now these our decisions. so that it adjudication, process the ad hoc arrived at the timber. to make cruise of desirable problem presented by three treating precise interest in al to reconcile the situations before us—how public places with the expression lowing free of ideas primary and uses of protection to one side deci parks should first set streets —we Con are to mislead rather than assist. apt sions and Federal cases convictions under State tempt upon what general limitation placing aimed at statutes into the additional factors written, bring said may be Minnesota, like 283 U. S. equation. Cases Near v. Co., S. Grosjean v. American U. Press experience regarding prior restraints on rooted historic They give recognition to the role publication. democracy, immediately press consideration logically pertinent. picketing cases are relevant involve, part, they usually dissemination since places. here also enter eco information But before nomic and interests outside situations social *8 Court, 460, 464-465. 339 U. Hughes Superior us. See v. S. exclusively concerned with restrictions The cases more public places in have upon expression in its divers forms in content problems varying greatly answered difficulty. in have been those which The easiest cases keeping free opposing
interest communication community scarcely could of the clean. This streets information prohibiting the justify dissemination In censoring or contents. Lovell v. by handbills their a requiring permit an 444, 303 U. S. ordinance Griffin, pamphlets was held invalid where licens- distribute ways be might limited to ing standard was “not regarded as inconsistent with the maintenance order as involving disorderly conduct, or the molestation of the inhabitants, littering or the misuse Id., O., In Hague streets.” at 451. v. 307 U. S. C. I. portion pro a 496, of the ordinance declared invalid In v. pamphlets. hibited the distribution Schneider State, 308 147, U. S. of the four ordinances declared three prohibited pam invalid the Court the distribution of Texas, phlets. In 413, Jamison 318 U. S. the Court again a municipal prohibiting declared invalid ordinance the distribution of all handbills.
2. In a group cases, regulation of related of solicita- tion has been the issue. Here opposing interest protection more fraud from substantial — and from criminals who use solicitation as a device to enter The fourth in homes. ordinance considered State, supra, Schneider v. allowed the chief of if permit found, discretion, to refuse a he his good canvasser was not of character or was can- project for a from vassing not free fraud. The ordi- was found could, nance invalid because the officer who in his discretion, concerning make determinations “good “project character” and not free from fraud” power held the censorship. effect Cantwell v. Con- necticut, 310 U. S. conviction under was, part, permit State statute requiring religious solicitation. licensing The statute was declared invalid because official could religious, determine what causes were allow- Id., ing “censorship religion.” Again, at 305. Texas, Largent v. an requiring 318 U. S. ordinance permit from who mayor, permit only issue the “proper if advisable,” he deemed declared invalid creating censorship. administrative The Court denied the has also those control of com- pany project town or Government housing prohibit Alabama, solicitation Jehovah’s Witnesses. Marsh v. *9 278 In Texas, 517. U. v. 326 S. 501;
326 U. S. Tucker Collins, 516, the solicitation v. U. Thomas 323 S. There a religion. than of labor rather in the interest organizers of labor requiring registration statute State speech enjoin to when invoked found unconstitutional protecting of the State in a hall. interest of vocations through regulation its citizens support insufficient to statute. deemed by Jeho religious literature 3. Whether the sale nondiscriminatory subjected to vah’s Witnesses can be opposing another has introduced taxes on solicitation community raise funds for right of the to interest —the 319 S. Opelika, In J ones v. U. government. support Pennsyl v. and Murdock vacating 584, S. 103, U. imposition vania, 105, Court held that 319 U. S. In Mc improper. v. upon the tax itinerants was Follett further hold Cormick, Court went to 573, 321 U. S. on of a flat tax book imposition unconstitutional selling living religious upon a resident who made his agents books. represents an- Struthers, S.
4. Martin v. 319 U. Struthers, City An situation. ordinance other knocking ringing door doorbell Ohio, forbade on the Prevention in order deliver handbill. residence to community assuring privacy in industrial of crime and to on and had obtain many night shifts, worked where justify held during day, were insufficient sleep their handbills distributed behalf the ordinance case Witnesses. Jehovah’s Court held decisions, these contrast Massachusetts, applica- 321 U. S. Prince providing of a State statute to Jehovah’s Witnesses tion girl periodi- no under 18 sell boy under should immunity was constitutional. Claims cals on the street regulation religious activities were subordinated from its protecting the interest of the State children.
279 speeches Control of in parks made streets and draws protection on still public different considerations — peace and of the primary uses travel recreation for parks which streets and exist.
(a)
pioneer
The
case
concerning speaking
parks and
Massachusetts,
streets Davis v.
43,
167
S.
which
U.
adopted
opinion
this Court
reasoning
the
the
below
written Mr.
Holmes,
Justice
while on the Massachu-
Supreme
Davis,
setts
Judicial Court. Commonwealth v.
510,
162 Mass.
An attempt to derive from dicta in the Davis case city any exercise over power parks, its arbitrary however discriminatory, rejected Hague O., v. C. I. supra. presented ordinance Hague permit case required for meetings ground, permit to be refused by licensing official only “for purpose riots, preventing disturbances or disorderly Id., assemblage.” at 502. The facts case, however, left no doubt that licensing power been made an of arbitrary “instrument suppression free expression of views on national Id., affairs.” at 516. And given the construction ordinance the State gave courts the licensing officials wide discretion. See Casey, 121 Thomas J. L. A. 185, 1 N. 2d 866. The hold ing Hague was not a city case subject could not parks the use of its regulation. streets reasonable The holding was that the licensing could officials not be given power arbitrarily to suppress free expression, no matter under what of law they purported cover to act. it clear made Hampshire, U. S. v. New
Cox
deny
locali-
Constitution does
United
that the
States
if
licensing
the exercise
system
power
to devise
ties
appropriately
licensing officials is
of discretion
fee
permit
license
requiring
A statute
confined.
State
by the
parades
narrowly
had been
construed
for “consider-
refused
The license could be
courts.
*11
and
as to conserve the
time, place
manner so
of
ations
“to meet the
convenience,” and the license fee was
public
of the Act
to
incident to the administration
expense
matter
in the
licensed.”
public
of
order
the maintenance
licensing system
sustained
Id.,
575-576, 577. The
from a nominal amount
tax, ranging
though the
even
on
facts
by
licensing
officials
$300, was determined
case.
each
additional considera-
(b) Two
have involved the
cases
In
Saia v. New
to the use
sound trucks.
tions incident
a
York,
required
license
U. S.
the ordinance
334
amplification
sound
from
chief of
use
places. The ordinance was construed
devices
upon
applied
passing
to be
standards
prescribe
not to
a
particular case,
In the
license
application.
a license
city
a
had
truck in small
been denied
use a sound
about
the ’noise which resulted
complaints
because
previously been used in the
amplifiers had
when sound
no
license had been
park.
indication that the
There
speeches.
the content of the
Never-
refused because of
Court held the ordinance unconstitutional.
theless, the
77, part
U.
of the Court
Cooper,
In
v.
336
S.
Kovacs
oper-
allowing conviction
the ordinance as
construed
“loud and raucous”
emitting
truck
any
ation of
sound
all
to ban
sound
part
construed
ordinance
noises,
upholding
The limits of the decision
Court
trucks.
but
the result
clear,
ordinance are therefore not
not leave
Saia decision
any event does
intact.
On a
(c)
few
Court
a
pass
occasions the
on
has
upon
imposed
limitation
speech by
sanction
after
licensing
event rather than
v.
statute.
Cantwell
Connecticut,
one
supra,
of the convictions
for com-
peace.
problem
mon-law breach
was resolved
in favor
defendant
reference to
Schenck United
States, 249
47, 52,
U. S.
view of the inquiry whether,
case,
the facts of the
present
there was “such
clear
public peace
menace to
and order as to render him liable
to conviction of the
question.”
common law offense in
In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, S. U. State statute had enacted the common-law doctrine “fighting person words”: “No shall any offensive, address derisive annoying word to any person other who is lawfully in any street or other place, nor him by call any offensive or derisive name . . . .” The State courts had previously held the statute applicable only to the use public place directly words tending to cause *12 breach of the peace by persons to the whom the remark was addressed. The speaker conviction of a street who called a policeman a “damned racketeer” and “damned Fascist” upheld.
7. One other noted, case should although be it involved a conviction for of in a peace building breach private rather than in a public place. Chicago, Terminiello v. 337 U. holding S. the Court the was on an abstract proposition of law, unrelated to the facts in the case. A conviction was overturned because the in judge had jury structed the peace” “breach included speech which the public “stirs to anger, dispute, invites brings about a condition of or unrest, creates a disturb .” holding ance . . . The apparently was that breach of may not be in defined such broad terms, cer tainly as speech private to hall. ex- been cases have multifarious
The results in these While directions. looking two pressed language importance speech,” “free emphasized the Court has itself speech” is recognized that “free it has other unmindful of is not The Constitution touchstone. if interference public order, interests, such as important found to be the ideas is not expression free with important than More consideration. overbalancing which questions opinions phrasing turned. appear to have decisions regu- require interest deemed What is the (1) pub- of course forbid speech? State cannot lation of public merely because religious argument proselyting lic or It must act speaker’s views. disapprove the officials public peace, to assure faith to maintain the good patent primary purposes availability of the streets for their indis- traffic, equally or passenger and vehicular community life. of modern pensable ends to achieve used such ends (2) What is the method speech of which is constrained consequence an official licensing gives A which standard barred? differs toto speech of a content authority censor the ccelo terms, from its nondiscrimina- limited one safety and tory practice, considerations assures applied a sanction after the event Again, like. of a situ- circumstances particular consideration broadly. must not be cast too ation. The net of control A sound speech regulated? is (3) What mode normal public peace found to affect the may truck be using calling A man who names or not. speech does another reasonably would stir language kind of *13 protection claim to not have same to violence does to reason. speech appeal as one whose is take regulated speaking which is (4) does Where streets, general only the place? Not classifications — The location parks, private relevant. buildings —are park; customary size of a its use for the recreational, contemplative community; esthetic and needs of a readily facilities, other than a or corner, street avail- community airing pertinent able in a views, are all assessing in considerations the limitations the Fourteenth puts power particular Amendment on State ain situation.1 Magistrates In M’Ara v. Edinburgh, 1913 S. C. a street speaking orator who was arrested for without a license in the streets Edinburgh, contrary Magistrates’ to the proclamation, challenged the arrest. The holding Court of Magistrates Session affirmed a that authority no proclamation to issue the because the Act of 1606 granting authority them was in However, desuetude. in judg his ment, Dunedin, Lord one the most minds in trenchant modern Anglo-American judicial history, argument dealt with the there that right speak public places. Although is an absolute he was applying law, constitution, Scots not written Lord Dunedin’s apposite remarks are here: right speech undoubtedly right
“Now the exists, of free and the speech promulgate your opinions speech long of free is to so you libellous, yourself do not utter what is treasonable or or make blasphemy obscenity. obnoxious to the statutes that deal with right speech perfectly thing separate But the of free is a from the question place may where that is be exercised. You say you provided ways what like it not obnoxious I have anywhere. indicated, may say you but that does not mean that it going may open spaces am with “I deal what be the case in upon public places. general pronouncement seems to me no that subject made, because, although could be for convenience sake speaks open spaces public places, often truth is that one spaces very character, open public places differ much their you thing say whether a could be done and before could certain history particular place you would have to know the a certain places place. may dedicated example, For there be certain are things might be uses, lawful to certain . . . and that otherwise were they purposes of that dedication. if interfered with restrained with Here we cases must be dealt when arises. Each those place Mound is dealing proper, this at the with a street because although, thoroughfare, city. just It is one of streets of thoroughfare particular very at used probably, not a much slightest right anyone place such there is not the corner. meeting Id. 1073-1074. such. . . .” to hold a
III. adjusted in the that were for interests regard the Due deciding guidance affords just canvassed decisions before us. cases to the case, danger neither Niemotko 1. In to the and convenience time peace, nor consideration permit. into denial have entered public, appears to opposed by would be violence those that there Rumors Council made its de- only after the meeting appeared city The allowed materialized. cision, and in fact never expres- To allow groups park. to use the religious other privilege deny the same religious by some sion of views unpopu- or merely they their views because others protection so, equal is a denial lar, deeply even by Amendment. law the Fourteenth forbidden Kunz case presents very different situation. confront- difficulties be mindful enormous We must polyglot enabling ing charged with the task of those York to live City New millions done in Columbus Circle is Street-preaching tolerance. Eng- a New preaching on quite in milieu different from not Again, religious polemic does village green. land man, nature of merely ratiocinative touch the show ugly facts disclosed the record this case religious deepest Kunz not offend the reluctant Especially Circle. frequenters of Columbus feelings of Court should not its situations, substitute such this au- judgment of local informed views abstract by local courts. thorities confirmed explicit my City that the I cannot make too conviction in the Consti- anything of New York is not restrained protecting completely from United States tution of the But community’s relation to its streets. interests holding meetings street municipality if a conditions permit by police, of a the basis granting guides licensing in granting denying permit officials give must not hand, them free free hand'effectively when the actualities of administration are taken into account. for this Court to with formulate *15 particularity permit of system terms would which satisfy the Fourteenth doubt, finding Amendment. No a want of such presupposes conception standards some of necessary what is to meet requirement the constitutional we draw from the Fourteenth many Amendment. But a decision of this Court on major rests some inarticulate premise and may is none for it. A the worse be standard found inadequate without the of necessity explicit deline- ation of the standards that just would “be adequate, may doggerel felt be not to be poetry without the need writing an essay on what poetry is. Administrative control speak over the must be based on appropriate standards, speaking whether the be done indoors or guarded out-of-doors. The vice to be against is arbitrary by action officials. The fact that in particular instance an appears action not arbitrary does validity save the authority under action was taken. present
In the
Kunz
case,
was not
arrested
what he
said on the
night
arrest, nor because at
that
time
he
disturbing
peace
or interfering with traffic. He
spoke
arrested because he
without
license, and
license was refused
because the
commissioner
thought
likely
performance
on the
of past
basis
that
Kunz
outrage
would
the religious sensibilities of others.
If
such
the supportable
been
finding
the basis
fair
in
standards
safeguarding
in one of the most
populous
centers New York City, this Court would not
justified in upsetting
be
it.
It would not
censorship
be
advance. But here the standards are defined
neither
language nor by
preclude
settled construction to
dis-
criminatory
arbitrary action
officials. The ordi-
who,
anyone
construed, provides judicially
nance,
would “ridicule”
officials,
licensing
judgment
dis-
danger
creates such
religion
or “denounce”
speak
any
street
turbance that he cannot
in-
standard, considering
City of
York. Such
New
readily
applied,
per-
too
procedure under which it is
formal
religion by
licensing
authorities.
censorship of
mits
Connecticut,
S. 296. The
Cantwell
310 U.
situation
not,
reiterate, .beyond
on the
control
here disclosed
directed to the evil.2
regulation appropriately
basis
gave
second time that
the ordinance which
rise
This is the
That fact is
been before the Court.
relevant
Kunz’s conviction has
appreciating
purpose of
the context
for the
however
under
considered the
which the Court
which and the circumstances
quite
under
time
different from the conditions
ordinance the first
present appeal. The first time the Court had to consider
lying the
*16
People
255,
Smith,
v.
263 Y.
appeal
on
from
N.
was
an
the ordinance
Appeals
York
of
sustained
case the New
Court
287 Law, York Feiner convicted under New Penal 722, which provides: §
“Any person who provoke with intent breach may peace, whereby breach occasioned, any be the following commits acts shall be deemed to have committed disorderly the offense of conduct:
“2.
disturb,
Acts
such manner as to
in-
annoy,
with, obstruct,
others;
be
terfere
offensive to
....”
A State court
preclude
cannot
course
review of due
process questions merely
opinion in
by phrasing its
terms
anof
ultimate standard which
itself
proc
satisfies due
Indiana,
ess. Watts v.
50; Baumgartner
49,
U.
v.
S.
States,
Alabama,
United
Norris v.
670-671;
This Court has
Due Process
authority over
court
of our
state
decisions
in an
and doc-
abstract
be construed
Clause must not
In con-
conditions.
by disregarding local
trinaire way
findings by the
degree
respect
given
to be
sidering the
Due Process
involving
of a State
cases
highest court
court should be
decisions
that
Clause,
course
due
within
area of
Particularly
taken
into account.
important
liberties,” it is
process
called “civil
colloquially
at-
cavalier
decisions reflects
whether such
course
Only
for them.
regard
civil
real
titude toward
liberties
of its
unfamiliarity
the outlook
with its decisions
of Appeals
Court
judges
generate
could
notion that the
of civil liberties
inhospitable to claims
York is
New
support
decisions
respect
this Court’s
wanting
is
all
therefore, to note
mem-
pertinent,
of them.
accepted
finding
Court
New York
bers of the
listeners or
stopped not because
Feiner was
disagreed with
views but because these officers
his
officers
preventing
concerned with
breach
honestly
were
persuasive
all the
since
unanimity is
more
peace. This
dissented,
three
the Court had
three members of
Kun'z,
vituperative
a man
in favor of
whose
earlier,
months
highly
been
offensive
them.
have
utterances must
I. O.,
Hague
supra,
v. C.
uncontrolled offi
As was said
“cannot be
substi-
suppression
speaker
cial
made
*18
duty
tute
to maintain order.”
It is breach-of-peace true that statutes, like most tools of government, may be misused. Enforcement of these statutes calls for tolerance and intelligent These, administration. long run, give must sub- stance to whatever Court may say this speech. about free possibility But the of misuse is not alone sufficient reason deny New York power here asserted soor limit constitutional deny practical construction as to its exercise.