The Connecticut labor press., 1920-08-21
FREE SPEECH.
Time Something Was Done to
 Safeguard It Effectively.

In the town of Duquesne, Pa, labor union organizers recently attempted to hold a street meeting. The town has a local ordinance requiring application for permits to hold such meetings The labor men were arrested and sen fenced to pay fine. They appealed to the common pleas court, which re- duced their fine but held the ordinance to be valid. They now announce their intention to carry the case to the United States supreme court.
 The practice of prohibiting and break ing up meetings of working people has become the rule in some localities, notable instances occurring recently i'll Waterbury. Many towns have ordin- ances which require a permit in ad- vance for any public meeting, which i'll itself is not an unreasonable provision But when labor folk apply for such a permit 1t is arbitrarily refused. Then if a meeting is held, even though it is perfectly orderly assembly, the par ticipants are arrested as 1awbreakers. There Is no doubt that these suppress sive measures have been instigated by the managers of local industries, not for the purpose of maintaining order in the community, but to prevetn their em- ployes from organizing and demanding
 
 ditions. This has led to fragrant mis- use and abuse of police powers.
 On the other hand, there have been cases where disorder has resulted di- rectly from reckless speech making at street meetings I. w. w. agitators have studied policy of going into towns where it is known that street speakers are subject to suppression, delivering wild and provocative speech es and inviting arrest and its resultant notoriety. They want to pose as |. martyrs" in the hope of drawing pub lie sympathy in their cause.
 The first amendment to the consti- tuition of the United States prohibits the making of any law tabridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assem- b1e, and to petition the government for redress of grievances" This seems plain enough, and yet state laws, federal laws and judicial interpretations seem to have radically changed the meaning of these provisions as they were un- derstood wehn the first amendment was ratified i'll 17o1.
 Just now a great portion of the peo- pie of the United States appear to have grievances of various kinds and they demand the right to air them. Another faction of the people, however, when the aired opinions run counter to their own, demand suppression by laws and ordinances denying the rights of peace able assembly and free speech to all except those who agree with them. Throughout this situation 1t Is the duty of the police authorities and the courts to maintain order, prevent in citement to disorder and to so regulate the activities of citizens that other citi- zens shall not be discommoded.
 But the police and the courts exceed their authority when they assume a prejudiced attitude and attempt to abridge the rights of peaceab1e assem- ply and lawful free speech. There are other methods, entirely in accord with the constitution, of dealing with those who plot treason or seek to bring state of anarchy in America.
 It is to be hoped that the Duquesne case will be carried to the supreme court. We need a clear definition of what the constitution means in it's guaranty of the rights and peaceab1e assembly and free speech. If 1t means that peaceab1e meetings of 1aboring people may be suppressed by order of local mayors, police chiefs or police | judges, at the instigation of private financial interests, let us definitely know 1t, that we may take steps to further amend the constitutio min accordance with the principles of American liberty