holding that municipality could not exempt labor picketing from a general prohibition on picketing at a school
How later courts described this case
- holding that municipality could not exempt labor picketing from a general prohibition on picketing at a school
- holding that ordinance which impermissibly distinguished between labor picketing and all other peaceful picketing violates the Equal Protection Clause
- invalidating a law that banned picketing within 150 feet of a school but exempted labor picketing
- invalidating as content-based an ordinance criminalizing picketing in front of schools, but excepting labor-related picketing
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Chief Justice Burger,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion but with the reservation that some of the language used in the discussion of the First *103 Amendment could, if read out of context, be misleading. Numerous holdings of this Court attest to the fact that the First Amendment does not literally mean that we “are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship.” This statement is subject to some qualifications, as for example those of Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942). See also New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 (1964).