Source: https://www.thefire.org/first-amendment-library/freedom-of-assembly/protests/?post_type=decision
Timestamp: 2020-05-30 12:55:27
Document Index: 49601201

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 702', '§ 702', '§ 772', '§ 772', '§ 772', '§ 772']

FIRE > Freedom of Assembly & Petition > Protests
This case presents the question whether regulations embodied in a municipal ordinance abridge the freedom of speech or of the press secured against state invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment.[1]Section 2 of an ordinance of Shasta County, California, provides:"It shall be unlawful for any person, in or upon any public street, highway, sidewalk, alley or other public place in the County of Shasta, State of California, to loiter in front of, or in the vicinity of, or to picket in front of, or in the vicinity of, or to carry, show or display any banner, transparency, badge or sign in front of, or in the vicinity of, any works, or factory, or any place of business or employment, for the purpose of inducing or influencing or attempting to induce or influence, any person to refrain from entering any such works, or factory, or place of business, or employment, or for the purpose of inducing or influencing, or attempting to induce or influence, any person to refrain from purchasing or using any goods, wares, merchandise, or other articles, manufactured, made or kept for sale therein, or for the purpose of inducing or influencing, or attempting to induce or influence, any person to refrain from doing or performing any service or labor in any works, factory, place of business or employment, or for the purpose of intimidating, threatening or coercing, or attempting to intimidate, threaten or coerce any person who is performing, seeking or obtaining service or labor in any such works, factory, place of business or employment."[2]*110 Appellant was one of a group of twenty-nine men engaged in "picketing" on U.S. Highway 99 in front of the Delta Tunnel Project in Shasta County. "The picketing consisted of walking [on the edge of the highway nearest the project] a distance of 50 to 100 feet in a general northerly direction, then turning around and retracing steps and continuing as before . . . all of the walking in connection with the picketing . . . was done off the paved portion of the highway and on the gravelled portion of the right-of-way, that is, on public property." Some of the pickets carried signs, similar to those described in the margin,[3] in such a manner that workers on the project and persons going along the highway in either direction could read them. The sign carried by appellant bore the legend: "This job is unfair to CIO." These activities occurred between the hours of 7:30 and 9:00 a.m. During this period vehicles and persons passed freely without any molestation or interference through the picket line from the highway to the project and from the project to the highway, and the traffic of persons and automobiles along the highway was not obstructed. Appellant did not threaten or intimidate or coerce anyone, did not make any loud noises at any time, and was peaceful and orderly in his demeanor. The *111 pickets committed no acts of violence, and there was no breach of the peace.
"(f) While portraying a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps, an actor in a *60 theatrical or motion-picture production may wear the uniform of that armed force if the portrayal does not tend to discredit that armed force." (Emphasis added.)
"The skit was composed of three people. There was Schacht who was dressed in a uniform and cap. A second person was wearing `military colored' coveralls. The third person was outfitted in typical Viet Cong apparel. The first two men carried water pistols. One of them would yell, `Be an able American,' and then they would shoot the Viet Cong with their pistols. The pistols expelled a red liquid which, when it struck the victim, created the impression *61 that he was bleeding. Once the victim fell down the other two would walk up to him and exclaim, `My God, this is a pregnant woman.' Without noticeable variation this skit was reenacted several times during the morning of the demonstration." 414 F. 2d 630, 632.
Our previous cases would seem to make it clear that 18 U. S. C. § 702, making it an offense to wear our military uniforms without authority is, standing alone, a valid statute on its face. See, e. g., United States v. O'Brien, 391 U. S. 367 (1968). But the general prohibition of 18 U. S. C. § 702 cannot always stand alone in view of 10 U. S. C. § 772, which authorizes the wearing of military uniforms under certain conditions and circumstances including the circumstance of an actor portraying a member of the armed services in a "theatrical production." 10 U. S. C. § 772 (f). The Government's argument in this case seems to imply that somehow what these amateur actors did in Houston should not be treated as a "theatrical production" within the meaning of § 772 (f). We are unable to follow such a suggestion. Certainly theatrical productions need not always be performed in buildings or even on a defined area such as a conventional stage. Nor need they be performed by professional actors or be heavily financed or elaborately produced. Since time immemorial, outdoor theatrical performances, often performed by amateurs, have played an important part in the entertainment and the education of the people of the world. Here, the record shows without dispute the preparation and repeated presentation by amateur actors of a short play designed to create in the audience an understanding of and opposition to our participation in the Vietnam war. Supra, at 60 and this page. It may be that the performances were crude and *62 amateurish and perhaps unappealing, but the same thing can be said about many theatrical performances. We cannot believe that when Congress wrote out a special exception for theatrical productions it intended to protect only a narrow and limited category of professionally produced plays.[3] Of course, we need not decide here all the questions concerning what is and what is not within the scope of § 772 (f). We need only find, as we emphatically do, that the street skit in which Schacht participated was a "theatrical production" within the meaning of that section.
This case arose out of two separate cross-burning incidents. In May 1998, Richard J. Elliott and Jonathan O’Mara burned a cross in the yard of James Jubilee, Elliott’s black neighbor. In August 1998, Barry Elton Black led a Ku Klux Klan rally on private property with the consent of the property’s owner. Black burned a cross at the rally, which frightened a relative of the property owner who watched from a nearby house. Prosecutors charged all three men with violating Virginia’s cross-burning statute, which provides: “It shall be unlawful for any person or persons, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, to burn, or to cause to be burned, a cross on the property of another, a highway or other public place.” All three men lost their criminal cases before the trial court. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions of the three men in two separate cases. The appeals court reasoned that the statute only proscribes true threats, a category of expression not protected by the First Amendment. The appeals court also determined that the burning of the cross is a form of fighting words, another category of speech not protected by the First Amendment. On appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court consolidated the two cases. In a 4-3 decision, the state supreme court reversed, finding the statute violated the First Amendment. The majority reasoned that the statute regulated speech based on hostility to the underlying message of cross burning.