Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/584/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:22:46+00:00

Document:
religion when applied to a member of a religious organization who is engaged in selling the printed propaganda of his sect. Pp. 316 U. S. 593, 316 U. S. 598.
2. One who sells religious literature on city streets, without having complied with provisions of an ordinance validly requiring that he first apply for and obtain a license and pay a license tax, cannot defend upon the ground that the ordinance is rendered unconstitutional as to him by a provision purporting to empower the licensing authority to revoke licenses without notice. Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, distinguished. P. 316 U. S. 599.
202 Ark. 614, 151 S.W.2d 1000, affirmed.
The first two of these cases were brought here by writs of certiorari, 314 U.S. 593, 315 U.S. 793. The third came up by appeal. In each case, the review was of a judgment affirming a conviction and fine for violation of a city ordinance declaring it unlawful to sell books or pamphlets within the municipal limits without having obtained a license and paid a license tax.
of various city ordinances imposing the license taxes upon the sale of printed matter for nonpayment of which the appellant, Jobin, and the petitioners, Jones, Bowden and Sanders, all members of the organization known as Jehovah's Witnesses, were convicted.
were in furtherance of his beliefs and the teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. Once again, by an unsuccessful motion for new trial, the constitutional issues were raised. The Court of Appeals of Alabama reversed the conviction on appeal because it thought the unlimited discretion of the City Commission to revoke the licenses invalidated the ordinance. Without discussion of this point, the Supreme Court of Alabama decided that nondiscriminatory licensing of the sale of books or tracts was constitutional, reversed the Court of Appeals, and stayed execution pending certiorari. 241 Ala. 279, 3 So.2d 76. This Court, having granted certiorari, 314 U.S. 593, dismissed the writ for lack of a final judgment. 315 U.S. 782. The Court of Appeals thereupon entered a judgment sustaining the conviction, which was affirmed by the Alabama Supreme Court and is final. 7 So.2d 503. We therefore grant the petition for rehearing of the dismissal of the writ and proceed with the consideration of the case.
The petitioners, in the exercise of their beliefs concerning their duty to preach the gospel, admitted going from house to house without a license, playing phonographic transcriptions of Bible lectures, and distributing books setting forth their views to the residents in return for a contribution of twenty-five cents per book. When persons desiring books were unable to contribute, the books were in some instances given away free. The Circuit judge concluded as a matter of law that the books were 'other goods,' and that petitioners were guilty of the peddling without a license. A motion for new trial was denied. On appeal the, Supreme Court of Arkansas held the ordinance constitutional on the authority of its previous decision in Cook v. Harrison, 180 Ark. 546, 21 S.W.2d 966, and affirmed the convictions. 202 Ark. 614, 151 S.W.2d 1000. This Court denied certiorari, 314 U.S. 651, but later, because of the similarity of the issues presented to those in the Jobin case, No. 966, vacated the denial of certiorari and issued a writ. 315 U.S. 793."
goods, wares and merchandise, to-wit: pamphlets, books and publications without first having procured a license"
was allowed under § 237 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 344.
sole constitutional question considered is whether a nondiscriminatory license fee, presumably appropriate in amount, may be imposed upon these activities.
to their convictions, but courts are competent to adjudge the acts men do under color of a constitutional right, such as that of freedom of speech or of the press or the free exercise of religion, and to determine whether the claimed right is limited by other recognized powers equally precious to mankind. [Footnote 13] So the mind and spirit of man remain forever free, while his actions rest subject to necessary accommodation to the competing needs of his fellows.
If all expression of religion or opinion, however, were subject to the discretion of authority, our unfettered dynamic thoughts or moral impulses might be made only colorless and sterile ideas. To give them life and force, the Constitution protects their use. No difference of view as to the importance of the freedoms of press or religion exist. They are "fundamental personal rights and liberties." Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 308 U. S. 161. To proscribe the dissemination of doctrines or arguments which do not transgress military or moral limits is to destroy the principal bases of democracy -- knowledge and discussion. One man, with views contrary to the rest of his compatriots, is entitled to the privilege of expressing his ideas by speech of broadside to anyone willing to listen or to read. Too many settled beliefs have in time been rejected to justify this generation in refusing a hearing to its own dissentients. But that hearing may be limited by action of the proper legislative body to times, places, and methods for the enlightenment of the community which, in view of existing social and economic conditions, are not at odds with the preservation of peace and good order.
by the people. [Footnote 14] The ordinary requirements of civilized life compel this adjustment of interests. The task of reconcilement is made harder by the tendency to accept as dominant any contention supported by a claim of interference with the practice of religion or the spread of ideas. Believing, as this nation has from the first, that the freedoms of worship and expression are closely akin to the illimitable privileges of thought itself, any legislation affecting those freedoms is scrutinized to see that the interferences allowed are only those appropriate to the maintenance of a civilized society. The determination of what limitations may be permitted under such an abstract test rests with the legislative bodies, the courts, the executive, and the people themselves, guided by the experience of the past, the needs of revenue for law enforcement, the requirements and capacities of police protection, the dangers of disorder, and other pertinent factors.
abridgement is shown. Compare Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, with Giragi v. Moore, 301 U.S. 670. If we were to assume, as is here argued, that the licensed activities involve religious rites, a different question would be presented. These are not taxes on free will offerings. But it is because we view these sales as partaking more of commercial than religious or educational transactions that we find the ordinances, as here presented, valid. A tax on religion or a tax on interstate commerce may alike be forbidden by the Constitution. It does not follow that licenses for selling Bibles or for manufacture of articles of general use, measured by extrastate sales, must fall. It may well be that the wisdom of American communities will persuade them to permit the poor and weak to draw support from the petty sales of religious books without contributing anything for the privilege of using the streets and conveniences of the municipality. Such an exemption, however, would be a voluntary, not a constitutionally enforced, contribution.
it is plain that, if each single fee is, as we assume, commensurate with the activities licensed, then, though the accumulation of fees from city to city may in time bulk large, he will have enjoyed a correlatively enlarged field of distribution. Cf. Coverdale v. Arkansas-Louisiana Pipe Line Co., 303 U. S. 604, 303 U. S. 612-613. The First Amendment does not require a subsidy in the form of fiscal exemption. Giragi v. Moore, supra. Accordingly, the challenge to the Fort Smith and Casa Grande ordinances fails.
There is an additional contention by petitioner as to the Opelika ordinance. It is urged that, since the licenses were revocable, arbitrarily, by the local authorities, note 3 supra, there can be no true freedom for petitioners in the dissemination of information because of the censorship upon their actions after the issuance of the license. But there has been neither application for nor revocation of a license. The complaint was bottomed on sales without a license. It was that charge against which petitioner claimed the protection of the Constitution. This issue he had standing to raise. Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U. S. 553, 283 U. S. 562. From what has been said previously, it follows that the objection to the unconstitutionality of requiring a license fails. There is no occasion at this time to pass on the validity of the revocation section, as it does not affect his present defense. Highland Farms Dairy v. Agnew, 300 U. S. 608, 300 U. S. 616; Lehon v. City of Atlanta, 242 U. S. 53, 242 U. S. 56.
be revoked does not necessarily destroy the licensing ordinance. The hazard of such revocation is much too contingent for us now to declare the licensing provisions to be invalid. Lovell v. Griffin has, in effect, held that discretionary control in the general area of free speech is unconstitutional. Therefore, the hazard that the license properly granted would be improperly revoked is far too slight to justify declaring the valid part of the ordinance, which is alone now at issue, also unconstitutional.
"4. Penalties. It shall be unlawful for any person . . . to engage in any of the businesses or vocations for which a license may be required without first having procured a license therefor, and any violation hereof shall constitute a criminal offense, and shall be punishable by fine . . . and by imprisonment."
"9. Persons Engaged In Two or More Vocations. All trades or vocations dealing in two or more of the articles or engaged in two or more of the trades or vocations for which licenses are required by the City shall pay for and take out licenses for each line of business, calling or vocation."
"12. Vocations Not Specified Herein. Any applicant desiring to conduct any business or vocation other than those specified in this license ordinance shall make application to the President of the Commission, who shall thereon fix a reasonable license for such business or vocation and instruct the Clerk as to the amount so fixed."
"1. Right of City to Revoke. All licenses, permits, or other grants to carry on any business, trade, vocation, or professions for which a charge is made by the City shall be subject to revocation in the discretion of the City Commission, with or without notice to the licensee."
"Should any section, condition, or provision or any rate or amount scheduled as against any particular occupation exhibited in the foregoing schedule be held void or invalid, such invalidity shall not affect any other section, rate or provision of this license schedule."
"Be it Ordained by the Board of Commissioners of the City of Fort Smith, Arkansas:"
"Section 1. That the license hereinafter named shall be fixed and imposed and collected at the following rates and sums, and it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to exercise or pursue any of the following vocations of business in the city of Fort Smith, Arkansas, without first having obtained a license therefor from the city clerk and having paid for the same. . . ."
"Section 40. For each person peddling dry goods, notions, wearing apparel, household goods, or other articles not herein or otherwise specifically mentioned, $25 per month, $10 per week, $2.50 per day. A person, firm or corporation using two or more men in their peddling business, $50 per annum."
"Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person . . . to carry on any trade, calling, profession, occupation or business in this ordinance specified without first having procured a license from the City of Casa Grande, so to do, . . . and each and every day or fractional part of a day that any trade, calling, profession, business or occupation in this ordinance specified is conducted or carried on without such license shall be a misdemeanor. . . ."
"Section 2. It shall be the duty of the City Clerk . . . to prepare and to issue a license under this ordinance for every person . . . liable to pay a license hereunder. . . ."
"Section 4. . . . Every person having such a license, and not having a fixed place of business shall carry such license with him at all times while carrying on the trade . . . or business for which the same was granted. Every person . . . having a license . . . shall produce and exhibit the same, . . . whenever requested to do so by any police officer or by any other officer authorized to issue, inspect, or collect licenses."
"Section 12. Peddlers, Transient Merchants; Vendors, defined:"
"(A) 'Transient Merchant' within the meaning of this ordinance shall include every person who, not for or in connection with a business at a fixed place within the City of Casa Grande, solicits orders from house to house for the future delivery of goods, or who shall deliver goods previously solicited by a solicitor at retail, or an order for future delivery."
"(B) As used in this ordinance, the term 'peddlers' shall include solicitors and other vendors not having a permanent place of business in the City of Casa Grande, and who are not specifically licensed or permitted to sell any class of goods whatsoever."
"(C) As used in this Ordinance, the term 'Street Vendors' includes all persons engaged in selling in or upon the streets, alleys or vacant grounds within the City, and goods, wares, merchandise or articles, including photographs, and also includes all persons engaged in conducting upon the streets, alleys, or vacant grounds of the City any ring, knife or similar game, or any 'faker' business, game or device."
"All persons coming within the definition of the occupations defined herein shall pay a quarterly license fee of Twenty Five Dollars ($25.00) in advance."
Cf. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Watson, 287 U. S. 86; New York v. Kleinert, 268 U. S. 646; Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U. S. 193, and Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc., 306 U. S. 583; Standard Stock Food Co. v. Wright, 225 U. S. 540.
Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U. S. 52; Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, and cases cited; Minersville District v. Gobitis, 310 U. S. 586, 310 U. S. 594; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 304, 310 U. S. 310; Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 308 U. S. 165; Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 307 U. S. 515-516; De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 299 U. S. 364.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 303; Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 308 U. S. 160; Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 303 U. S. 450; Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652.
Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, 312 U. S. 574; Home Bldg. & L. Assn. v. Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, 290 U. S. 435.
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 303; Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145, 98 U. S. 166.
Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, 312 U. S. 573, 312 U. S. 576; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 306; Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 308 U. S. 1605.
Cf. Schneider v. State, supra, 308 U. S. 161.
Cf. Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 307 U. S. 516.
"distribute or cause to be distributed or strewn about any street or public place any newspapers, paper, periodical, book, magazine, circular, card, or pamphlet,"
p. 307 U. S. 501; Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 308 U. S. 162, holds similar prohibitory ordinances unconstitutional.
Cf. City of Manchester v. Leiby, 117 F.2d 661, requirement of badge for street selling of books, papers or pamphlets.
Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, 312 U. S. 572-573, 312 U. S. 576.
I think that the ordinance in each of these cases is, on its face, a prohibited invasion of the freedoms thus guaranteed, and that the judgment in each should be reversed.
The ordinance in the Opelika case should be held invalid on two independent grounds. One is that the annual tax, in addition to the 50 cent "issuance fee" which the ordinance imposes, is an unconstitutional restriction on those freedoms, for reasons which will presently appear. The other is that the requirement of a license for dissemination of ideas, when, as here the license is revocable at will without cause and in the unrestrained discretion of administrative officers, is likewise an unconstitutional restraint on those freedoms.
one as in the other. Nor is any palliative afforded by the assertion that the defendant's failure to apply for a license deprives him of standing to challenge the ordinance because of its revocation provision, by the terms of which retention of the license and exercise of the privilege may be cut off at any time without cause.
Indeed, the present ordinance is a more callous disregard of the constitutional right than that exhibited in Lovell v. Griffin, supra. There, at least the defendant might have been given a license if he had applied for it. In any event, he would not have been compelled to pay a money exaction for a license to exercise the privilege of free speech -- a license which, if granted in this case, would have been wholly illusory. Here, the defendant Jones was prohibited from distributing his pamphlets at all unless he paid in advance a year's tax for the exercise of the privilege and subjected himself to termination of the license without cause, notice, or hearing, at the will of city officials. To say that he who is free to withhold at will the privilege of publication exercises a power of censorship prohibited by the Constitution, but that he who has unrestricted power to withdraw the privilege does not, would be to ignore history and deny the teachings of experience, as well as to perpetuate the evils at which the First Amendment was aimed.
It is of no significance that the defendant did not apply for a license. As this Court has often pointed out, when a licensing statute is, on its face, a lawful exercise of regulatory power, it will not be assumed that it will be unlawfully administered in advance of an actual denial of application for the license. But here, it is the prohibition of publication, save at the uncontrolled will of public officials, which transgresses constitutional limitations, and makes the ordinance void on its face. The Constitution can hardly be thought to deny to one subjected to the restraints of such an ordinance the right to attack its constitutionality, because he has not yielded to its demands. Lovell v.
Griffin, supra, 303 U. S. 452-453; Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U. S. 553, 283 U. S. 562. The question of standing to raise the issue in this case is indistinguishable from that in the Lovell case, where it was resolved in the only manner consistent with the First Amendment.
The separability provision of the Opelika ordinance * cannot serve, in advance of judicial decision by the state court, to separate those parts which are constitutionally applicable from those which are not. We have no means of knowing that the city would grant any license if the license could not be made revocable at will. The state court applied the ordinance as written. It did not rely or pass upon the effect to be given to the separability clause, or determine whether any effect was to be given to it. Until it has done so, this Court -- as we decided only last Monday -- must determine the constitutional validity of the ordinance as it stands, and as it stood when obedience to it was demanded and punishment for its violation inflicted. Skinner v. Oklahoma, ante, p. 316 U. S. 535; Smith v. Cahoon, supra, 283 U. S. 563-564.
free speech and free religion comparable to license taxes which this Court has often held to be an inadmissible burden on interstate commerce. They argue also that the cumulative effect of such taxes, in town after town throughout the country, would be destructive of freedom of the press for all persons except those financially able to distribute their literature without soliciting funds for the support of their cause.
While these are questions which have been studiously left unanswered by the opinion of the Court, it seems inescapable that an answer must be given before the convictions can be sustained. Decision of them cannot rightly be avoided now by asserting that the amount of the tax has not been put in issue; that the tax is "uncontested in amount" by the defendants, and can therefore be assumed by us to be "presumably appropriate," "reasonable," or "suitably calculated;" that it has not been proved that the burden of the tax is a substantial clog on the activities of the defendants, or that those who have defrayed the expense of their religious activities will not willingly defray the license taxes also. All these are considerations which would seem to be irrelevant to the question now before us -- whether a flat tax, more than a nominal fee to defray the expenses of a regulatory license, can constitutionally be laid on a noncommercial, nonprofit activity devoted exclusively to the dissemination of ideas, educational and religious in character, to those persons who consent to receive them.
amounts of the "fees," without more, demonstrate that such a contention is groundless. In No. 280, Opelika itself contends that the issue relates solely to its power to raise money for general revenue purposes, and the Supreme Court of Alabama referred to the levy as a "reasonable" "tax." The tax exacted by Opelika, on the face of the ordinance, is in addition to a 50-cent "issuance fee," which alone is presumably what the city deems adequate to defray the cost of administering the licensing system. Similarly, in the Fort Smith and Casa Grande cases, the state courts sustained the ordinances as a tax, and nothing else. If this litigation has involved any controversy -- and the state courts all seemed to think that it did -- the controversy has been one solely relating to the power to tax, and not the power to collect a "fee" to support a licensing system which, as has already been indicated, has no regulatory purpose other than that involved in the raising of revenue.
police protection or the good order of the community. The only condition and purpose of the licenses under all three ordinances is suppression of the specified distributions of literature in default of the payment of a substantial tax fixed in amount and measured neither by the extent of the defendants' activities under the license nor the amounts which they receive for and devote to religious purposes in the exercise of the licensed privilege. Opelika exacts a license fee for book agents of $10 per annum and of $5 per annum for transient distributors of books, in addition to a 50-cent "issuance fee" on each license. The Supreme Court of Alabama found it unnecessary to determine whether both or only one of these taxes was payable by defendant Jones. The Fort Smith tax of $25 a month or $10 a week or $2.50 a day is substantial in amount for transient distributors of literature of the character here involved; the Opelika exaction is even more onerous when applied against one who may be in the city for only a day or two, and the tax of $25 per quarter exacted by the Casa Grande ordinance, adopted in a community having an adult population of less than 1,000 and applied to distributions of literature like the present, is prohibitive in effect.
24:14, by going from city to city, from village to village, and house to house to proclaim them. After asking and receiving permission from the householder, they play to him phonograph records and tender to him books or pamphlets advocating their religious views. For the latter, they ask payment of a nominal amount, two to five cents for the pamphlets and twenty-five cents for books, as a contribution to the religious cause which they seek to advance. But they distribute the pamphlets, and sometimes the books, gratis when the householder is unwilling or unable to pay for them. The literature is published for such distribution by nonprofit charitable corporations organized by Jehovah's Witnesses. The funds collected are used for the support of the religious movement, and no one derives a profit from the publication and distribution of the literature. In the Opelika case, the defendant's activities were confined to distribution of literature and solicitation of funds in the public streets.
decision in Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 308 U. S. 163, that the essential character of these activities is in some measure altered by the collection of funds for the support of a religious undertaking, still it seems plain that the operation of the present flat tax is such as to abridge the privileges which the defendants here invoke.
It lends no support to the present tax to insist that its restraint on free speech and religion is nondiscriminatory because the same levy is made upon business callings carried on for profit, many of which involve no question of freedom of speech and religion, and all of which involve commercial elements -- lacking here -- which, for present purposes, may be assumed to afford a basis for taxation apart from the exercise of freedom of speech and religion. The constitutional protection of the Bill of Rights is not to be evaded by classifying with business callings an activity whose sole purpose is the dissemination of ideas, and taxing it as business callings are taxed. The immunity which press and religion enjoy may sometimes be lost when they are united with other activities not immune. Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U. S. 52. But here, the only activities involved are the dissemination of ideas, educational and religious, and the collection of funds for the propagation of those ideas, which we have said is likewise the subject of constitutional protection. Schneider v. State, supra; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 304-307.
The First Amendment is not confined to safeguarding freedom of speech and freedom of religion against discriminatory attempts to wipe them out. On the contrary, the Constitution, by virtue of the First and the Fourteenth Amendments, has put those freedoms in a preferred position. Their commands are not restricted to cases where the protected privilege is sought out for attack. They extend at least to every form of taxation which, because it is a condition of the exercise of the privilege, is capable of being used to control or suppress it.
Even were we to assume -- what I do not concede -- that there could be a lawful nondiscriminatory license tax of a percentage of the gross receipts collected by churches and other religious orders in support of their religious work, cf. Giragi v. Moore, 301 U.S. 670, we have no such tax here. The tax imposed by the ordinances in these cases is more burdensome and destructive of the activity taxed than any gross receipts tax. The tax is for a fixed amount, unrelated to the extent of the defendants' activities or the receipts derived from them. It is thus the type of flat tax which, when applied to interstate commerce, has repeatedly been deemed by this Court to be prohibited by the commerce clause. See McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 309 U. S. 33, 309 U. S. 55-57, and cases cited; cf. Best & Co. v. Maxwell, 311 U. S. 454, 311 U. S. 456. When applied, as it is here, to activities involving the exercise of religious freedom, its vice is emphasized in that it is levied and paid in advance of the activities taxed, and applied at rates well calculated to suppress those activities save only as others may volunteer to pay the tax. It requires a sizable out-of-pocket expense by someone who may never succeed in raising a penny in his exercise of the privilege which is taxed.
taxes and other kinds. But that fact affords no excuse to courts, whose duty it is to enforce those guaranties, to close their eyes to the characteristics of a tax which render it destructive of freedom of press and religion.
We may lay to one side the Court's suggestion that a tax otherwise unconstitutional is to be deemed valid unless it is shown that there are none who, for religion's sake, will come forward to pay the unlawful exaction. The defendants to whom the ordinances have been applied have not paid it, and there is nothing in the Constitution to compel them to seek the charity of others to pay it before protesting the tax. It seems fairly obvious that, if the present taxes, laid in small communities upon peripatetic religious propagandists, are to be sustained, a way has been found for the effective suppression of speech and press and religion despite constitutional guaranties. The very taxes now before us are better adapted to that end than were the stamp taxes which so successfully curtailed the dissemination of ideas by eighteenth century newspapers and pamphleteers, and which were a moving cause of the American Revolution. See Collett, History of the Taxes on Knowledge, vol. 1, c. 1; May, Constitutional History of England, 7th ed., vol. 2, p. 245; Hanson, Government and the Press, 1695-1763, pp. 7-14; Morison, The English Newspaper, 1622-1932, pp. 83-88; Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra, 297 U. S. 245-249. Vivid recollections of the effect of those taxes on the freedom of press survived to inspire the adoption of the First Amendment.
White & Prince, Inc. v. Henneford, 305 U. S. 434, 305 U. S. 441, 305 U. S. 446-455; McCarroll v. Dixie Lines, 309 U. S. 176, 309 U. S. 184-185, it cannot be thought that that function is wanting under the explicit guaranties of freedom of speech, press, and religion. In any case, the flat license tax can hardly become any the less burdensome or more permissible when levied on activities within the protection extended by the First and Fourteenth Amendments both to the orderly communication of ideas, educational and religious, to persons willing to receive them, see Cantwell v. Connecticut, supra, and to the practice of religion and the solicitation of funds in its support. Schneider v. State, supra.
In its potency as a prior restraint on publication, the flat license tax falls short only of outright censorship or suppression. The more humble and needy the cause, the more effective is the suppression.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, and MR. JUSTICE MURPHY join in this opinion.
only to those whose views accord with prevailing thought, but also to dissident minorities who energetically spread their beliefs. Being satisfied by the evidence that the ordinances in the cases now before us, as construed and applied in the state courts, impose a burden on the circulation and discussion of opinion and information in matters of religion, and therefore violate the petitioners' [Footnote 2/1] rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of worship in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment, I am obliged to dissent from the opinion of the Court.
In No. 280, the trial court excluded as irrelevant petitioner's testimony that he was an ordained minister and that his activities on the streets of Opelika were in furtherance of his ministerial duties. The testimony of ten clergymen of Opelika that they distributed free religious literature in their churches, the cost of which was defrayed by voluntary contribution, and that they had never been forced to pay any license fee, was also excluded. It is admitted here that petitioner was a Jehovah's Witness, and considered himself an ordained minister.
spoken word, by playing various religious records on a phonograph, with the approval of the householder, and by distributing printed books, pamphlets, and tracts which set forth his views as to the meaning of the Bible. The method of distribution of these printed books, pamphlets, and tracts was as follows: he first offered them for sale at various prices ranging from five to twenty-five cents each. If the householder did not desire to purchase any of them, he then left a small leaflet summarizing some of the doctrines which he preached."
"claims to be an ordained minister of the gospel. . . . They do not engage in this work for any selfish reason, but because they feel called to publish the news and preach the gospel of the Kingdom to all the world as a witness before the end comes. . . . They believe that the only effective way to preach is to go from house to house and make personal contact with the people and distribute to them books and pamphlets setting forth their views on Christianity."
"were going from house to house in the residential section within the City of Fort Smith . . . presenting to the residents of these houses various booklets, leaflets and periodicals setting forth their views of Christianity held by Jehovah's Witnesses."
They solicited a "contribution of twenty-five cents for each book," but "these books in some instances are distributed free when the people wishing them are unable to contribute."
There is no suggestion in any of these three cases that petitioners were perpetrating a fraud, that they were demeaning themselves in an obnoxious manner, that their activities created any public disturbance or inconvenience, that private rights were contravened, or that the literature distributed was offensive to morals or created any "clear and present danger" to organized society.
"unequivocally held that the streets are proper places for the exercise of the freedom of communicating information and disseminating opinion and that, though the states and municipalities may appropriately regulate the privilege in the public interest, they may not unduly burden or proscribe its employment in these public thoroughfares."
Valentine v. Chrestensen, ante, p. 316 U. S. 52, 316 U. S. 54. And, as the distribution of pamphlets to spread information and opinion on the streets and from house to house for noncommercial purposes is protected from the prior restraint of censorship, Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444; Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, so should it be protected from the burden of taxation.
The opinion of the Court holds that the amount of the tax is not before us, and that a "nondiscriminatory license fee, presumably appropriate in amount, may be imposed upon these activities." Both of these holdings must be rejected.
tax of Casa Grande approaches prohibition. The 1940 population of that town was 1,545. With so few potential purchasers, it would take a gifted evangelist indeed, in view of the antagonism generally encountered by Jehovah's Witnesses, to sell enough tracts at prices ranging from five to twenty-five cents to gross enough to pay the tax. Cf. McConkey v. Fredericksburg, 179 Va. 556, 19 S.E.2d 682. While the amount is actually lower in Opelika, [Footnote 2/6] and may be lower in Fort Smith, in that it is possible to get a license for a short period, [Footnote 2/7] and while the circle of purchasers is wider in those towns, [Footnote 2/8] these exactions also place a heavy hand on petitioners' activities. The petitioners should not be subjected to such tribute.
resisted, prior to the adoption of the First Amendment, as interferences with freedom of the press. [Footnote 2/10] Surely all this was familiar knowledge to the framers of the Bill of Rights. We need not shut our eyes to the possibility that use may again be made of such taxes, either by discrimination in enforcement or otherwise, to suppress the unpalatable views of militant minorities such as Jehovah's Witnesses. See McConkey v. Fredericksburg, 179 Va. 556, 19 S.E.2d 682. As the evidence excluded in No. 280 tended to show, no attempt was there made to apply the ordinance to ministers functioning in a more orthodox manner than petitioner.
Witnesses are widespread, and the aggregate effect of numerous exactions, no matter how small, can conceivably force them to choose between refraining from attempting to recoup part of the cost of their literature or else paying out large sums in taxes. Either choice hinders, and may even possibly put an end to, their activities. There is no basis, other than a refusal to consider the characteristics of taxes such as these, for any assumption that such taxes are "commensurate with the activities licensed." Nor is there any assurance that "a correlatively enlarged field of distribution" will insure sufficient proceeds even to meet such exactions, let alone leaving any residue for the continuation of petitioners' evangelization.
Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion all have a double aspect -- freedom of thought and freedom of action. Freedom to think is absolute of its own nature; the most tyrannical government is powerless to control the inward workings of the mind. But even an aggressive mind is of no missionary value unless there is freedom of action -- freedom to communicate its message to others by speech and writing. Since, in any form of action, there is a possibility of collision with the rights of others, there can be no doubt that this freedom to act is not absolute, but qualified, being subject to regulation in the public interest which does not unduly infringe the right. However, there is no assertion here that the ordinances were regulatory, but, if there were such a claim, they still should not be sustained. No abuses justifying regulation are advanced, and the ordinances are not narrowly and precisely drawn to deal with actual, or even hypothetical, evils while at the same time preserving the substance of the right. Cf. 310 U. S. Alabama, 310 U.S.
88, 310 U. S. 105; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 U. S. 311. They impose a tax on the dissemination of information and opinion anywhere within the city limits, whether on the streets or from house to house.
"As we have said, the streets are natural and proper places for the dissemination of information and opinion, and one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised elsewhere."
Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 308 U. S. 163. These taxes abridge that liberty.
ordinances, it is clear that they were seeking only to further their religious convictions by preaching the gospel to others.
The exercise, without commercial motives, of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or freedom of worship are not proper sources of taxation for general revenue purposes. In dealing with a permissible regulation of these freedoms and the fee charged in connection therewith, we emphasized the fact that the fee was "not a revenue tax, but one to meet the expense incident to the administration of the act and to the maintenance of public order," and stated only that "[t]here is nothing contrary to the Constitution in the charge of a fee limited to the purpose stated." Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, 312 U. S. 577. The taxes here involved are ostensibly for revenue purposes; they are not regulatory fees. Respondents do not show that the instant activities of Jehovah's Witnesses create special problems causing a drain on the municipal coffers, or that these taxes are commensurate with any expenses entailed by the presence of the Witnesses. In the absence of such a showing, I think no tax whatever can be levied on petitioners' activities in distributing their literature or disseminating their ideas. If the guaranties of freedom of speech and freedom of the press are to be preserved, municipalities should not be free to raise general revenue by taxes on the circulation of information and opinion in noncommercial causes; other sources can be found the taxation of which will not choke off ideas. Taxes such as the instant ones violate petitioners' right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, protected against state invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment.
opinion of any kind, whether political, scientific, or religious in character, when done solely in an effort to spread knowledge and ideas, with no thought of commercial gain. But there is another, and perhaps more precious, reason why these ordinances cannot constitutionally apply to petitioners. Important as free speech and a free press are to a free government and a free citizenry, there is a right even more dear to many individuals -- the right to worship their Maker according to their needs and the dictates of their souls, and to carry their message or their gospel to every living creature. These ordinances infringe that right, which is also protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296.
Petitioners were itinerant ministers going through the streets and from house to house in different communities, preaching the gospel by distributing booklets and pamphlets setting forth their views of the Bible and the tenets of their faith. While perhaps not so orthodox as the oral sermon, the use of religious books is an old, recognized, and effective mode of worship and means of proselytizing. [Footnote 2/13] For this, petitioners were taxed. The mind rebels at the thought that a minister of any of the old established churches could be made to pay fees to the community before entering the pulpit. These taxes on petitioners' efforts to preach the "news of the Kingdom" should be struck down because they burden petitioners' right to worship the Deity in their own fashion and to spread the gospel as they understand it. There is here no contention that their manner of worship gives rise to conduct which calls for regulation, and these ordinances are not aimed at any such practices.
By applying these occupational taxes to petitioners' noncommercial activities, respondents now tax sincere efforts to spread religious beliefs, and a heavy burden falls upon a new set of itinerant zealots, the Witnesses. That burden should not be allowed to stand, especially if, as the excluded testimony in No. 280 indicates, the accepted clergymen of the town can take to their pulpits and distribute their literature without the impact of taxation. Liberty of conscience is too full of meaning for the individuals in this nation to permit taxation to prohibit or substantially impair the spread of religious ideas, even though they are controversial and run counter to the established notions of a community. If this Court is to err in evaluating claims that freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion have been invaded, far better that it err in being overprotective of these precious rights.
For convenience, appellant in No. 966, petitioners in No. 314, and petitioner in No. 280 are herein collectively referred to as "petitioners."
"in no respect relates to regulatory or police power action of a municipal government, but is concerned only with the municipality's right to levy taxes."
The Supreme Court of Arizona stated in No. 966 that "the ordinance, on its face, is the ordinary occupational license tax ordinance."
Several courts have taken this position. State ex rel. Semansky v. Stark, 196 La. 307, 199 So. 129; People v. Finkelstein, 170 Misc. 188, 9 N.Y.S.2d 941; Thomas v. Atlanta, 59 Ga. App. 520, 1 S.E.2d 598; State v. Meredith, 197 S.C. 351, 15 S.E.2d 678; State ex rel. Hough v. Woodruff, 147 Fla. 299, 2 So.2d 577; Cincinnati v. Mosier, 61 Ohio App. 81, 22 N.E.2d 418. Compare Gregg v. Smith, 8 L.R.Q.B. (1872-1873), p. 302; Duncan v. Gairns, 27 Canadian Cr.Cases 440; but see Rex v. Stewart, 53 Canadian Cr. Cases 24.
And see Rutledge, J., dissenting in Busey v. District of Columbia, 129 F.2d 24, decided April 15, 1942.
When the Opelika ordinance is considered on its face, there is an additional reason for its invalidity. The uncontrolled power of revocation lodged with the local authorities is but the converse of the system of prior licensing struck down in Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444. Here, as there, the pervasive threat of censorship inherent in such a power vitiates the ordinance.
The 1940 population of Fort Smith was 36,584, and that of Opelika 8,487.
The English Stamp Act of 1712, 10 Anne, c.19, put a tax on newspapers and pamphlets to check what seemed to the Government to be "false and scandalous libels" and "the most horrid blasphemies against God and religion." This and subsequent enactments led to a long struggle in England for the repeal of these "taxes on knowledge" and the recognition of the freedom of the press. See Collett, History of the Taxes on Knowledge (1899); Place, Taxes on Knowledge (1831).
Stamp taxes for purely revenue purposes were successfully resisted in Massachusetts in 1757, and again in 1785, on the ground that they interfered with freedom of the press. See Duniway, Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts (1906), pp. 119-120, 136-137; Thomas, History of Printing in America (1810), vol. 2, pp. 267-268. The press also vigorously opposed the Stamp Act of 1765, 5 Geo. III, c. 12, which was also a revenue measure. See Duniway, op. cit., p. 124; Thomas, op. cit., pp. 189, 297, 322, 329, 350; Van Tyne, Causes of the War of Independence (1922), p. 160; 15 Scottish Historical Review 322, 326.
In addition to the instant cases, see Cincinnati v. Mosier, 61 Ohio App. 81, 22 N.E.2d 418; State v. Meredith, 197 S.C. 351, 15 S.E.2d 678; Thomas v. Atlanta, 59 Ga. App. 520, 1 S.E.2d 598; Commonwealth v. Reid, 144 Pa.Super. 569, 20 A.2d 841; People v. Banks, 168 Misc. 515, 6 N.Y.S.2d 41; Cook v. Harrison, 180 Ark. 546, 21 S.W.2d 966; State v. Greaves, 112 Vt. 222, 22 A.2d 497; Busey v. District of Columbia, 129 F.2d 24; McConkey v. Fredericksburg, 179 Va. 556, 19 S.E.2d 682; City of Blue Island v. Kozul, 379 Ill. 511, 41 N.E.2d 515; State ex rel. Semansky v. Stark, 196 La. 307, 199 So. 129; People v. Finkelstein, 170 Misc. 188, 9 N.Y.S.2d 941; State ex rel. Hough v. Woodruff, 147 Fla. 299, 2 So.2d 577; Borchert v. Ranger, 42 F.Supp. 577.
See The Volumes of the American Tract Society (1848), pp. 15-16, 24; Home Evangelization (1850), pp. 70-74; Lee, History of the Methodists (1810), p. 48.
Adopted in 1785 through the efforts of Jefferson and Madison. Virginia Code of 1930, § 34.
"Article I. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship, or religious sentiments, in the said territories."
See Works of Thomas Jefferson (1861), vol. VIII, pp. 398-402 (Notes on Virginia, Query XVII); Cobb, Rise of Religious Liberty in America (1902); Little, Imprisoned Preachers and Religious Liberty in Virginia (1938); Lee, History of the Methodists (1810), pp. 62-74; Greene, The Development of Religious Liberty In Connecticut (1905), pp. 158-180; Guilday, Life and Times of John Carroll (1922), vol. 1, Chapters V and VIII.
Little, op. cit., pp. 11-13, 67-69; Greene, op. cit., pp. 243, 262-263, 358; Cobb, op. cit., pp. 98, 104, 358; Wright, Hawkers and Walkers in Early America (1927), Chapter X; Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the Revolution (1928), p. 59.
The Journal of the Rev. Francis Asburoy (1821), vol. 1, pp. 208, 253; Lee, op. cit., pp. 62-74.
The Stamp Act of 1765 exempted "any books containing only matters of devotion or piety." MacDonald, Documentary Source Book of American History (3d ed., 1934), p. 128.
occasion to state that we now believe that it was also wrongly decided. Certainly our democratic form of government functioning under the historic Bill of Rights has a high responsibility to accommodate itself to the religious views of minorities, however unpopular and unorthodox those views may be. The First Amendment does not put the right freely to exercise religion in a subordinate position. We fear, however, that the opinions in these and in the Gobitis case do exactly that.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 237
 § 344
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 34