# Lillian B. Waters v. Peter G. Peterson

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · October 12, 1973 · 495 F.2d 91

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9460500

## Case

- **Full name:** Lillian B. WATERS Et Al., Appellants, v. Peter G. PETERSON Et Al.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** October 12, 1973
- **Citations:** 495 F.2d 91; 161 U.S. App. D.C. 265; 6 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 8900; 1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 7556
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Fahy
- **Judges:** Fahy, Leventhal, Robb
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Disagreed with by Bence v. Breier, 501 F.2d 1185 (1974).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9460500

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9460500. Public record. Not legal advice.