The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation Part 142

PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS

The Society of Sisters, an Oregon corporation, was empowered by its charter to care for orphans and to establish and maintain schools and academies for the education of the youth. Systematic instruction and moral training according to the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church was given in its establishments along with education in the secular branches. By an Oregon statute, effective September 1, 1926, it was required that every parent, or other person having control or charge or custody of a child between eight and sixteen years send him "to a public school for the period of time a public school shall be held during the current year" in the district where the child resides; and failure so to do was declared a misdemeanor. The District Court of The United States for Oregon enjoined the enforcement of the statute and the Supreme Court unanimously sustained its action,[42] holding that the measure unreasonably interfered with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control--a liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. While the First Amendment was not mentioned in the Court's opinion, the subsequent absorption of its religious clauses into the Fourteenth Amendment seems to make the case relevant to the question of their proper interpretation.

FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION: FEDERAL RESTRAINTS

Religious belief cannot be pleaded as a justification for an overt act made criminal by the law of the land. "Laws are made for the government of action, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices."[43] To permit a man to excuse conduct in violation of law on the ground of religious belief "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."[44] It does not follow that "because no mode of wors.h.i.+p can be established or religious tenets enforced in this country, therefore any tenets, however destructive of society, may be held and advocated, if a.s.serted, to be a part of the religious doctrine of those advocating and practicing them * * * Whilst legislation for the establishment of a religion is forbidden, and its free exercise permitted, it does not follow that everything which may be so-called can be tolerated. Crime is not the less odious because sanctioned by what any particular sect may designate as religion."[45] Accordingly acts of Congress directed against either the practice of the advocacy of polygamy by members of a religious sect which sanctioned the practice, were held valid.[46] But when, in the Ballard Case,[47] decided in 1944, the promoters of a religious sect, whose founder had at different times identified himself as Saint Germain, Jesus, George Was.h.i.+ngton, and G.o.dfre Ray King, were convicted of using the mails to defraud by obtaining money on the strength of having supernaturally healed hundreds of persons, they found the Court in a softened frame of mind. Although the trial judge, carefully discriminating between the question of the truth of defendants' pretensions and that of their good faith in advancing them, had charged the jury that it could pa.s.s on the latter but not the former, this caution did not avail with the Court, which contrived on another ground ultimately to upset the verdict of "guilty." The late Chief Justice Stone, speaking for himself and Justices Roberts and Frankfurter, dissented: "I cannot say that freedom of thought and wors.h.i.+p includes freedom to procure money by making knowingly false statements about one's religious experiences."[48]

FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION: STATE AND LOCAL RESTRAINTS

The Mormon Church cases were decided prior to the emergence of the clear and present danger doctrine dealt with below. In its consideration of cases stemming from State and local legislation the Court has endeavored at times to take account of this doctrine, with the result that its decisions have followed a somewhat erratic course. The leading case is Cantwell _v._ Connecticut.[49] Here three members of the sect calling itself Jehovah's Witnesses were convicted under a statute which forbade the unlicensed soliciting of funds on the representation that they were for religious or charitable purposes, and also on a general charge of breach of the peace by accosting in a strongly Catholic neighborhood two communicants of that faith and playing to them a phonograph record which grossly insulted the Christian religion in general and the Catholic church in particular. Both convictions were held to violate the const.i.tutional guarantees of speech and religion, the clear and present danger rule being invoked in partial justification of the holding, although it is reasonably inferable from the Court's own recital of the facts that the listeners to the phonograph record exhibited a degree of self-restraint rather unusual under the circ.u.mstances. Two weeks later the Court, as if to "compensate" for its zeal in the Cantwell Case, went to the other extreme, and urging the maxim that legislative acts must be presumed to be const.i.tutional, sustained the State of Pennsylvania in excluding from its schools children of the Jehovah's Witnesses, who in the name of their beliefs refused to salute the flag.[50] The subsequent record of the Court's holdings in this field is somewhat variable. A decision in June, 1942, sustaining the application to vendors of religious books and pamphlets of a nondiscriminatory license fee[51] was eleven months later vacated and formally reversed;[52] shortly thereafter a like fate overtook the decision in the "Flag Salute"

Case.[53] In May, 1943, the Court found that an ordinance of the city of Struthers, Ohio, which made it unlawful for anyone distributing literature to ring a doorbell or otherwise summon the dwellers of a residence to the door to receive such literature, was violative of the Const.i.tution when applied to distributors of leaflets advertising a religious meeting.[54] But eight months later it sustained the application of Ma.s.sachusetts' child labor laws in the case of a nine year old girl who was permitted by her legal custodian to engage in "preaching work" and the sale of religious publications after hours.[55]

However, in Saia _v._ New York[56] decided in 1948, the Court held, by a vote of five Justices to four, that an ordinance of the city of Lockport, New York, which forbade the use of sound amplification devices except with the permission of the Chief of Police was unconst.i.tutional as applied in the case of a Jehovah's Witness who used sound equipment to amplify lectures in a public park on Sunday, on religious subjects.

But a few months later the same Court, again dividing five-to-four, sustained a Trenton, New Jersey ordinance which banned from that city's streets all loud speakers and other devices which emit "loud and raucous noises."[57] The latest state of the doctrine on this particular topic is represented by three cases, all decided the same day. In one the conviction of a Baptist minister for conducting religious services in the streets of New York City without first obtaining a permit from the city police commissioner was overturned,[58] a permit having been refused him on the ground that he had in the past ridiculed other religious beliefs thereby stirring strife and threatening violence.

Justice Jackson dissented, quoting Mr. Bertrand Russell to prove that "too little liberty brings stagnation, and too much brings chaos. The fever of our times," he suggested, "inclines the Court today to favor chaos."[59] In the second, the Court upset the conviction of a group of Jehovah's Witnesses in Maryland for using a public park without first obtaining a permit.[60] The third case,[61] which had nothing to do with religion, affords an interesting foil to the other two. It is dealt with in another connection.[62]

FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION: OBLIGATIONS OF CITIZENs.h.i.+P

In 1918 the Court rejected as too unsound to require more than a mere statement the argument that the Selective Service Act was repugnant to the First Amendment as establis.h.i.+ng or interfering with religion, by reason of the exemptions granted ministers of religion, theological students and members of sects whose tenets exclude the moral right to engage in war.[63] The opposite aspect of this problem was presented in Hamilton _v._ Regents.[64] There a California statute requiring all male students at the State university to take a course in military science and tactics was a.s.sailed by students who claimed that military training was contrary to the precepts of their religion. This act did not require military service, nor did it peremptorily command submission to military training. The obligation to take such training was imposed only as a condition of attendance at the university. In these circ.u.mstances, all members of the Court concurred in the judgment sustaining the statute.

No such unanimity of opinion prevailed in In re Summers,[65] where the Court upheld the action of a State Supreme Court in denying a license to practice law to an applicant who entertained conscientious scruples against partic.i.p.ation in war. The license was withheld on the premise that a conscientious belief in nonviolence to the extent that the believer would not use force to prevent wrong, no matter how aggravated, made it impossible for him to swear in good faith to support the State Const.i.tution. The Supreme Court held that the State's insistence that an officer charged with the administration of justice take such an oath and its interpretation of that oath to require a willingness to perform military service, did not abridge religious freedom. In a dissenting opinion in which Justices Douglas, Murphy and Rutledge concurred, Justice Black said, "I cannot agree that a State can lawfully bar from a semipublic position a well-qualified man of good character solely because he entertains a religious belief which might prompt him at some time in the future to violate a law which has not yet been and may never be enacted."[66]

Freedom of Speech and Press

THE BLACKSTONIAN BACKGROUND

"The liberty of the press," says Blackstone, "is indeed essential to the nature of a free state: but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure from criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public: to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government. But to punish (as the law does at present) any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall on a fair and impartial trial be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty.

Thus, the will of individuals is still left free: the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry: liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public, of bad sentiments, destructive to the ends of society, is the crime which society corrects."[67]

EFFECT OF AMENDMENT I ON THE COMMON LAW

Blackstone was declaring the Common Law of his day, and it was no intention of the framers of Amendment I to change that law. "The historic antecedents of the First Amendment preclude the notion that its purpose was to give unqualified immunity to every expression that touched on matters within the range of political interest. The Ma.s.sachusetts Const.i.tution of 1780 guaranteed free speech; yet there are records of at least three convictions for political libels obtained between 1799 and 1803. The Pennsylvania Const.i.tution of 1790 and the Delaware Const.i.tution of 1792 expressly imposed liability for abuse of the right of free speech. Madison's own State put on its books in 1792 a statute confining the abusive exercise of the right of utterance. And it deserves to be noted that in writing to John Adams' wife, Jefferson did not rest his condemnation of the Sedition Act of 1798 on his belief in unrestrained utterance as to political matter. The First Amendment, he argued, reflected a limitation upon Federal power, leaving the right to enforce restrictions on speech to the States.[68] * * * 'The law is perfectly well settled,' this Court said over fifty years ago, 'that the first ten amendments to the Const.i.tution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had from time immemorial been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed.'[69] That this represents the authentic view of the Bill of Rights and the spirit in which it must be construed has been recognized again and again in cases that have come here within the last fifty years."[70]

AMENDMENT XIV AND BLACKSTONE

Nor was the adoption of Amendment XIV thought to alter the above described situation until a comparatively recent date. Said Justice Holmes, speaking for the Court in 1907: "We leave undecided the question whether there is to be found in the Fourteenth Amendment a prohibition similar to that in the First. But even if we were to a.s.sume that freedom of speech and freedom of the press were protected from abridgment on the part not only of the United States but also of the States, still we should be far from the conclusion that the plaintiff in error would have us reach. In the first place, the main purpose of such const.i.tutional provisions is 'to prevent all such _previous restraints_ upon publications as had been practiced by other governments,' and they do not prevent the subsequent punishment of such as may be deemed contrary to the public welfare. Commonwealth _v._ Blanding, 3 Pick. 304, 313, 314; Respublica _v._ Oswald, 1 Dallas 319, 325. The preliminary freedom extends as well to the false as to the true; the subsequent punishment may extend as well to the true as to the false. This was the law of criminal libel apart from statute in most cases, if not in all.

Commonwealth _v._ Blanding, _ubi sup._; 4 Bl. Comm. 150."[71] This appears to be an unqualified endors.e.m.e.nt of Blackstone. But, as Justice Holmes remarks in the same opinion, "There is no const.i.tutional right to have all general propositions of law once adopted remain unchanged."[72]

As late as 1922 Justice Pitney, speaking for the Court, said: "Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any other provision of the Const.i.tution of the United States imposes upon the States any restriction about 'freedom of speech' or the 'liberty of silence' * * *"[73]

THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE, MEANING

The rule requires that before an utterance can be penalized by government it must, ordinarily, have occurred "in such circ.u.mstances or have been of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger" that it would bring about "substantive evils" within the power of government to prevent.[74] The question whether these conditions exist is one of law for the courts, and ultimately for the Supreme Court, in enforcement of the First and/or the Fourteenth Amendment;[75] and in exercise of its power of review in these premises the Court is ent.i.tled to review broadly findings of facts of lower courts, whether State or federal.[76]

CONTRASTING OPERATION OF THE COMMON LAW RULE

In Davis _v._ Beason,[77] decided in 1890, the question at issue was the const.i.tutionality of a statute of the Territory of Idaho, providing that "no person who is a bigamist or polygamist, or who teaches, advices, counsels or encourages any person or persons to become bigamists or polygamists or to commit any other crime defined by law, or to enter into what is known as plural or celestial marriage, or who is a member of any order, organization or a.s.sociation which teaches, advises, counsels or encourages its members or devotees or any other persons to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy, or any other crime defined by law, either as a rite or ceremony of such order, organization or a.s.sociation, or otherwise, is permitted to vote at any election, or to hold any position or office of honor, trust or profit within this Territory." A unanimous court held this enactment to be within the legislative powers which Congress had conferred on the Territory and not to be open to any const.i.tutional objection. Said Justice Field for the Court: "Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common sense of mankind. If they are crimes, then to teach, advise, and counsel their practice is to aid in their commission, and such teaching and counselling are themselves criminal and proper subjects of punishment, as aiding and abetting crime are in all other cases."[78] No talk here about the necessity for showing that the prohibited teaching, counselling, advising, etc., must be shown to have occurred in circ.u.mstances creating a clear and present danger of its being followed.

In Fox _v._ Was.h.i.+ngton,[79] decided in 1915, the question at issue was the const.i.tutionality of a Was.h.i.+ngton statute denouncing "the wilful printing, circulation, etc., of matter advocating or encouraging the commission of any crime or breach of the peace or which shall tend to encourage or advocate disrespect for law or any court or courts of justice." The State Supreme Court had a.s.sumed that the case was governed by the guarantees of the United States Const.i.tution of freedom of speech, and especially by the Fourteenth Amendment, and its decision sustaining the statute was upheld by the Supreme Court on the same a.s.sumption, in the case of a person indicted for publis.h.i.+ng an article encouraging and inciting what the jury had found to be a breach of State laws against indecent exposure. Again, one notes the total absence of any reference to the clear and present danger rule. But not all State enactments survived judicial review prior to the adoption of the clear and present danger test. In 1927 the Court disallowed a Kansas statute which, as interpreted by the highest State court, made punishable the joining of an organization teaching the inevitability of "the cla.s.s struggle";[80] three years later it upset a California statute which forbade in all circ.u.mstances the carrying of a red flag as a symbol of opposition to government;[81] and 6 years after that it upset a conviction under an Oregon statute for partic.i.p.ating in a meeting held under the auspices of an organization which was charged with advocating violence as a political method, although the meeting itself was orderly and did not advocate violence.[82] In none of these cases was the clear and present danger test mentioned.

EMERGENCE OF THE CLEAR AND PRESENT TEST

In Schenck _v._ United States[83] appellants had been convicted of conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917[84] "by causing and attempting to cause insubordination, etc., in the military and naval forces of the United States, and to obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service of the United States, when the United States was at war with the German Empire, to-wit, that the defendants willfully conspired to have printed and circulated to men who had been called and accepted for military service under the Act of May 18, 1917, a doc.u.ment set forth and alleged to be calculated to cause such insubordination and obstruction." Affirming the conviction, the Court, speaking by Justice Holmes said: "It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is not confined to previous restraints, although to prevent them may have been the main purpose, as intimated in Patterson _v._ Colorado.[85] * * * We admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that was said in the circular would have been within their const.i.tutional rights. But the character of every act depends upon the circ.u.mstances in which it is done. * * * The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that have all the effect of force. * * * The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circ.u.mstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree."[86] One week later two other convictions under the same act were affirmed, with Justice Holmes again speaking for the unanimous Court. In Frohwerk _v._ United States[87] he said: "With regard to the argument [on the const.i.tutional question] we think it necessary to add to what has been said in Schenck _v._ United States, * * *, only that the First Amendment while prohibiting legislation against free speech as such cannot have been, and obviously was not, intended to give immunity for every possible use of language. Robertson _v._ Baldwin, 165 U.S.

275, 281. We venture to believe that neither Hamilton nor Madison, nor any other competent person then or later, ever supposed that to make criminal the counselling of a murder within the jurisdiction of Congress would be an unconst.i.tutional interference with free speech."[88] In Debs _v._ United States[89] he referred to "the natural and intended effect"

and "probable effect"[90] of the condemned speech (straight common law).

When, moreover, a case arose in which the dictum in the Schenck case might have influenced the result, the Court, seven Justices to two, declined to follow it. This was in Abrams _v._ United States,[91] in which the Court affirmed a conviction for spreading propaganda "obviously intended to provoke and to encourage resistance to the United States in the war." Justices Holmes and Brandeis dissented on the ground that the utterances did not create a clear and imminent danger[92] of substantive evils. And the same result was reached in Schaefer _v._ United States,[93] again over the dissent of Justices Holmes and Brandeis, the Court saying that: "The tendency of the articles and their efficacy were enough for the offense * * *."[94]

THE GITLOW AND WHITNEY CASES

Gitlow was convicted under a New York statute making it criminal to advocate, advise or teach the duty, necessity or propriety of overturning organized government by force or violence.[95] Since there was no evidence as to the effect resulting from the circulation of the manifesto for which he was convicted and no contention that it created any immediate threat to the security of the State, the Court was obliged to reach a clear cut choice between the common law test of dangerous tendency and the clear and present danger test. It adopted the former and sustained the conviction, saying "By enacting the present statute the state has determined, through its legislative body, that utterances advocating the overthrow of organized government by force, violence, and unlawful means, are so inimical to the general welfare, and involve such danger of substantive evil, that they may be penalized in the exercise of its police power. That determination must be given great weight * * *

That utterances inciting to the overthrow of organized government by unlawful means present a sufficient danger of substantive evil to bring their punishment within the range of legislative discretion is clear.

Such utterances, by their very nature, involve danger to the public peace and to the security of the state. They threaten breaches of the peace and ultimate revolution. And the immediate danger is none the less and substantial because the effect of a given utterance cannot be accurately foreseen. The state cannot reasonably be required to measure the danger from every such utterance in the nice balance of a jeweler's scale."[96] Justice Sanford distinguished the Schenck Case by a.s.serting that its "general statement" was intended to apply only to cases where the statute "merely prohibits certain acts involving the danger of substantive evil without any reference to language itself,"[97] and has no application "where the legislative body itself has previously determined the danger of substantive evil arising from utterances of a specified character."[98]

Two years later, in Whitney _v._ California,[99] upon evidence which tended to establish the existence of a conspiracy to commit certain serious crimes, the conviction was sustained unanimously. In a concurring opinion in which Justice Holmes joined, Justice Brandeis restated the test of clear and present danger to include the intent to create such danger: "But, although the rights of free speech and a.s.sembly are fundamental, they are not in their nature absolute. Their exercise is subject to restriction, if the particular restriction proposed is required in order to protect the state from destruction or from serious injury, political, economic or moral. That the necessity which is essential to a valid restriction does not exist unless speech would produce, or is intended to produce, a clear and imminent danger of some substantive evil which the State const.i.tutionally may seek to prevent has been settled. _See_ Schenck _v._ United States, 249 U.S. 47, 52. * * *, no danger flowing from speech can be deemed clear and present, unless the incidence of the evil apprehended is so imminent that it may befall before there is opportunity for full discussion. If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence."[100]

ACCEPTANCE OF THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST

Ten years later, in Herndon _v._ Lowry,[101] a narrowly divided Court drew a distinction between the prohibition by law of specific utterances which the legislators have determined have a "dangerous tendency" to produce substantive evil and the finding by a jury to that effect, and on this basis reversed the conviction of a communist organizer under a State criminal syndicalism statute, with the intimation that where it is left to a jury to determine whether particular utterances are unlawful, the test of clear and present danger must be applied.[102] Finally, in Thornhill _v._ Alabama,[103] the Court went the full length in invalidating a State law against picketing because[104] "* * * no clear and present danger of destruction of life or property, or invasion of the right of privacy, or breach of the peace can be thought to be inherent in the activities of every person who approaches the premises of an employer and publicizes the facts of a labor dispute involving the latter." The same term, again invoking the clear and present danger formula, it reversed a conviction for the common law offense of inciting a breach of the peace by playing, on a public street, a phonograph record attacking a religious sect.[105]

THE POLICE POWER AND CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER

Public Order

Prior to the Court's ratification of the clear and present danger test it had held that while on the one hand, peaceful and orderly opposition to government by legal means may not be inhibited, and that the Const.i.tution insures the "maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes may be obtained by lawful means,"[106] yet on the other hand, the State may punish those who abuse their freedom of speech by utterances tending to incite to crime,[107]

or to endanger the foundations of organized government or to threaten its overthrow by unlawful means.[108] The impact of the clear and present danger test upon these principles is well ill.u.s.trated by a holding in 1949 by a sharply divided Court, that a Chicago ordinance which, as judicially interpreted, was held to permit punishment for breach of the peace for speech which "stirs the public to anger, invites disputes, (or) brings about a condition of unrest" was an undue and unlawful restriction on the right of free speech.[109] Reversing a conviction under the ordinance, Justice Douglas wrote: "A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute * * * is nevertheless protected against censors.h.i.+p or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest."[110] Finding that the ordinance as thus construed was unconst.i.tutional, the majority did not enter into a consideration of the facts of the particular case. Dissenting, Justice Jackson dwelt at length upon the evidence which showed that a riot had actually occurred and that the speech in question had in fact provoked a hostile mob, incited a friendly one, and threatened violence between the two. Conceding the premises of the majority opinion, he argued nevertheless that: "Because a subject is legally arguable, however, does not mean that public sentiment will be patient of its advocacy at all times and in all manners. * * * A great number of people do not agree that introduction to America of communism or fascism is even debatable.

Hence many speeches, such as that of Terminiello, may be legally permissible but may nevertheless in some surroundings be a menace to peace and order. When conditions show the speaker that this is the case, as it did here, there certainly comes a point beyond which he cannot indulge in provocations to violence without being answerable to society."[111] Early in 1951 the Court itself endorsed this position in Feiner _v._ New York.[112] Here was sustained the conviction of a speaker who in addressing a crowd including a number of Negroes, through a public address system set up on the sidewalk, a.s.serted that the Negroes "should rise up in arms and fight for their rights," called a number of public officials, including the President, "b.u.ms," and ignored two police requests to stop speaking. The Court took cognizance of the findings by the trial court and two reviewing State courts that danger to public order was clearly threatened.[113]

Public Morals

But the police power extends also to the public morals. In Winters _v._ New York[114] the question at issue was the const.i.tutionality of a State statute making it an offense "to print, publish, or distribute, or to possess with intent to distribute, any printed matter princ.i.p.ally made up of criminal views, police reports, or accounts of criminal deeds, or pictures, or stories of deeds of bloodshed, l.u.s.t or crime," and construed by the State courts "as prohibiting such ma.s.sing of accounts of deeds of bloodshed and l.u.s.t as to incite to crimes against the person." A divided Court, 6 Justices to 3, following the third argument of the case before it, set the act aside on the ground that, as construed, it did not define the prohibited acts in such a way as to exclude those which are a legitimate exercise of the const.i.tutional freedom of the press; and further, that it failed to set up an ascertainable standard of guilt.[115] A few weeks earlier the Court had vacated a judgment of the Supreme Court of Utah affirming convictions on a charge of conspiring to "commit acts injurious to public morals" by counseling, advising and practicing plural marriage.[116] Four members of the Court thought that the cause should be remanded in order to give the State Supreme Court opportunity to construe that statute and a fifth agreed with this result without opinion. Justice Rutledge, speaking for himself and Justices Douglas and Murphy, dissented on the ground that the Utah Court had already construed the statute to authorize punishment for exercising the right of free speech. He said: "The Utah statute was construed to proscribe any agreement to advocate the practice of polygamy. Thus the line was drawn between discussion and advocacy. The Const.i.tution requires that the statute be limited more narrowly. At the very least the line must be drawn between advocacy and incitement, and even the state's power to punish incitement may vary with the nature of the speech, whether persuasive or coercive, the nature of the wrong induced, whether violent or merely offensive to the mores, and the degree of probability that the substantive evil actually will result."[117]

PICKETING AND CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER

Closely allied to the problem of dangerous utterances is the resort to picketing as a means of communication and persuasion in labor disputes.