FREEDOM OF SPEECH

All of the following cases related to situations involving Freedom of Speech.  The first case is Chaplin sky v. New Hampshire 315 (1943).  The next three cases are as follows:  Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. (1971), Hague v. the Committee of Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939), and finally, Tinker, v. Des Moines Independent Community School District 393 U.S. 503 (1969).  The first case of Chaplin sky v. New Hampshire 315 (1943), involves a religious individual from the denomination of Jehovah Witness who it was alleged, verbally insulted a peace officer after the Jehovah Witness had been asked to leave a scene of political protest.  The individual who it was alleged committed the insulted, was arrested as per a statute that relates to what would in more recent eras, be construed as basically using such speech that is likely to incite subversive and anarchic type activity, i.e., rioting.  As one generally seems to know, Jehovah Witnesses have often come under scrutiny given what some critics refer to as their controversial nature.  Keeping an impartial, balanced and objective view of the situation, we ought to consider that in 1939, the gravity of the situation involving a Jehovah Witness alleged to have verbally accosted a police officer, would have most certainly been headline news.  The main issue of the matter as it related to the appeal process was one particular line of speech that follows: “plainly likely to cause a breach of the peace by the addressee,” and it was decided by the courts that such speech is indeed not protected by way of the United States Constitution.  The court system went on to state that technically, the right of free speech is not absolute at all times.”  Naturally, for laypersons and outside observers who think that they have the absolute and total right to say whatever they want in the United States of America without having to be subject to legal injunction and further prosecution, is merely an urban legend and almost total misconception. 

In the 2^nd case of Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. (1971), which was argued on February 22, 1971 to be exact and then later decided on December 22 of the same year, an individual was alleged to disturbed the peace, essentially.  The American Civil Liberties Union became involved in this particular case after the organization decided to file on behalf of the petitioner in relation to amicus curiae and ask the court to reverse the original decision.  Therefore, and as part of the legal framework given that amicus curiae is when an outside party and/or entity of sorts, files a motion with the courts as a “friend of the court,” the ACLU offered to help clarify certain Constitutional Rights information of which the latter had been scrutinized primarily.  As is often the case when an individual for whom it has been alleged has used some kind of inflammatory speech in public, the same individual can be said to at the same time, be not only using such speech that is construed as merely offensive to some parties, but also be using that same speech to incite a riot and violence.  Such was it alleged to have taken place in this case, as the individual in question was charged with inciting violence.  The ACLU obviously despite submitting information as a “friend of the court” was really looking out for the best interests and legal right of the accused individual who had made the appeal.  Two justices in the matter seemed to have agreed and thus concurred in that the original findings were later modified to the advantage of the petitioner.  In essence, the Justices believed that what had really occurred was that the petitioner in the matter had been law-abiding when speaking within the confines of a rented/leased property wherein such space was allocated for the purpose of both religious and political gathering.  Basically, the two justices seemed to be very clear in their understating that the local police in New Jersey had no business harassing religious devotees of any religion and that what the police had really done was unfairly targeted the group on the pretext that the religious followers were in some way connected to the “Communist Party of America” and other communist organizations.   

Next, in the 3^rd case of Hague v. the Committee of Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1936), involves both labor union organizations as well as corporate organizations.  The appellants in the matter include members of the aforementioned labor unions.  As one knows, labor unions have often come under fire and have been at the center of innumerable controversies throughout U.S. industrial and commercial history.  In, Hague v. the Committee of Industrial Organization, of which the latter will hereafter be referred to simply as the ‘CIO,’ approximately three U.S. Court Justices sided with the petitioners and overturned the original court’s findings.  Specifically, and again, this was a matter in the vicinity of New Jersey in which various individuals had been deemed by local police to be part of some kind of communist era under tiding.  The case brought into questions policies pertaining to what at the time was called the “National Labor Relations” Act, as well as certain information, laws and statutes related to rental of hall space for political speeches and gatherings.  Evidently, a bill, thus city ordinance of some kind had been in effect, or rather was purported to be in place at the time, that made it impermissible for groups, organizations, and individuals to obtain a permit from the local police if the space to be rented would be used for purposes of inciting and calling for the destruction of the U.S. government and its employees, agents, officials, officers and so forth.  Back then, before x-number of subsequent cases had been decided in America that would later pave the way for as well as establish certain legal precedent in this country, it was very easy for people and unruly parties to make the claim that certain laws existed because for the most part, the Internet was non-existent and the average layperson hadn’t any real access to the legal system other than from the word of a paid attorney or book from an esoteric legal library.  Again, all these cases take into account early court decisions that more or less laid the ground work for what ultimately became amended laws to our system of government and legal framework relevant to Freedom of Speech and the Right to Free Expression.

Finally, the 4^th case of Tinker, v. Des Moines Independent Community School District 393 U.S. 503 (1969), pertains to constitutional right of the public school system in relation to other rights and responsibilities thereof.