concluding that a statute prohibiting “willfully disturb [ing] or break[ing] up any assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character,” as “literally applied,” violated' the First Amendment (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- concluding that a statute prohibiting “willfully disturb [ing] or break[ing] up any assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character,” as “literally applied,” violated' the First Amendment (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)
- characterizing “a large, public celebration held outdoors in a public park, featuring, in the course of a political campaign, a public official as the principal speaker” as a “public meeting” or “public gathering”
- characterizing meeting as “large, public celebration held outdoors in a public park, featuring, in the course of a political campaign, a public official as the principal speaker”
- noting also that such speech, though perhaps rude, “can nonetheless advance the goals of the First Amendment”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McCOMB, J.
I dissent. I would deny the writ.