Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/96691/lovell-vs-city-griffin
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:26:38+00:00

Document:
1. Whether a federal question was properly presented to and decided by a state court is itself a federal question, to be decided by this Court upon appeal. P. 303 U. S. 450 .
2. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are protected by the First Amendment from infringement by Congress, are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action. P. 303 U. S. 450 .
3. Municipal ordinances adopted under state authority constitute state action within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. P. 303 U. S. 450 .
4. A city ordinance forbidding as a nuisance the distribution, by hand or otherwise, of literature of any kind without first obtaining written permission from the City Manager violates the Fourteenth Amendment; strikes at the very foundation of the freedom of the press by subjecting it to license and censorship. P. 303 U. S. 450 .
5. The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It embraces pamphlets and leaflets. P. 303 U. S. 452 .
6. One who is prosecuted for disobeying a license ordinance which is void on its face may contest its validity without having sought a permit under it. P. 303 U. S. 452 .
v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333 , 133 U. S. 342 , 133 U. S. 343 . But, in the Coleman case, the Court did not deal with the question of freedom of speech and of the press, as it had not been properly presented. We think that this question was adequately presented, and was decided in the instant case. Whether it was so presented and was decided is itself a federal question. Carter v. Texas, 177 U. S. 442 , 177 U. S. 447 ; Ward v. Love County, 253 U. S. 17 , 253 U. S. 22 ; First National Bank v. Anderson, 269 U. S. 341 , 269 U. S. 346 ; Schuylkill Trust Co. v. Pennsylvania, 296 U. S. 113 , 296 U. S. 121 . This Court has jurisdiction.
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are protected by the First Amendment from infringement by Congress, are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties which are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by state action. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652 , 268 U. S. 666 ; Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359 , 283 U. S. 368 ; Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697 , 283 U. S. 707 ; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233 , 297 U. S. 244 ; De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353 , 299 U. S. 364 . See also Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319 . It is also well settled that municipal ordinances adopted under state authority constitute state action, and are within the prohibition of the amendment. Raymond v. Chicago Union Traction Co., 207 U. S. 20 ; Home Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Los Angeles, 227 U. S. 278 ; Cuyahoga River Power Co. v. Akron, 240 U. S. 462 .
constitutional provision. See Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U. S. 454 , 205 U. S. 462 ; Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697 , 283 U. S. 713 -716; Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233 , 297 U. S. 245 , 297 U. S. 246 . Legislation of the type of the ordinance in question would restore the system of license and censorship in its baldest form.
Ex parte Jackson, 96 U. S. 727 , 96 U. S. 733 . The license tax in Grosjean v. American Press Co., supra, was held invalid because of its direct tendency to restrict circulation.
entitled to contest it validity in answer to the charge against her. Smith v. Cahoon, 283 U. S. 553 , 283 U. S. 562 .

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