Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/299/353
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:39:34+00:00

Document:
1. The practice of substituting for the evidence a stipulation of facts not shown to have received the approval of the court below is disapproved. P. 358.
3. Criminal punishment under a state statute for participation in the conduct of a public meeting, otherwise lawful, merely because the meeting was held under the auspices of an organization which teaches or advocates the use of violence, or other unlawful acts [p354] or methods to effect industrial or political change or revolution, though no such teaching or advocacy attended the meeting in question, violates the constitutional principles of free speech and assembly. P. 362.
The First Amendment of the Federal Constitution expressly guarantees that right against abridgment by Congress. But explicit mention there does not argue exclusion elsewhere. For the right is one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions -- principles which the Fourteenth Amendment embodies in the general terms of its due process clause. Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U.S. 312, 316; Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 67; Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra.
CHAPLINSKY v. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE.
TAYLOR v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. BENOIT v. SAME. CUMMINGS v. SAME.
COLE et al. v. STATE OF ARKANSAS.
John Francis NOTO, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.