Later courts went against this
Disagreed with by Bence v. Breier, 501 F.2d 1185 (1974)
We reject the suggestion in Waters v. Peterson, id. at 99, that “[wjhere criminal prosecution is not at issue, a broad regulation can be given content by the authorities through its proper application.
The opinion
FAHY, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring:
In concurring in the opinion of Judge Leventhal for the court I add a few words. Due to the importance of the protection of free speech under the First Amendment, great care is required where disciplinary or punitive action is taken against anyone who claims the protection, but we do not exonerate the appellants. The Census Bureau is required, however, to appraise the situation anew, guided as the opinion requires as to the part the words of the sign might have played in the total conduct of appellants. As the opinion states, the disciplinary action meted out to appellants cannot be sustained if it was predicated on the mere content of the sign, solely, alternatively, or concurrently. On the other hand the opinion does not preclude a sanction based on mixed conduct and speech, where the speech, or written message, though itself protected by the First Amendment separately considered, is of such character as to be a significant factor in the total effect of the conduct.