Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/418/264/
Timestamp: 2017-07-27 23:03:44
Document Index: 123415932

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 10', '§ 8', '§ 19', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 1', '§ 7', '§ 1', '§ 7', 'art, 215', '§ 8', '§ 14', '§ 8', '§ 8']

OLD DOMINION BRANCH NO. 496, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO, et al., Appellants, v. Henry M. AUSTIN et al. | LII / Legal Information Institute
Supreme Court aboutsearch liibulletin subscribe previews OLD DOMINION BRANCH NO. 496, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO, et al., Appellants, v. Henry M. AUSTIN et al.
418 U.S. 264 (94 S.Ct. 2770, 41 L.Ed.2d 745)
Argued: Nov. 14, 1973.
1. Although Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, supra, held that federal labor law does not completely pre-empt the application of state laws to libels published during labor disputes, that decision recognized that federal law does pre-empt state law to the extent that the State seeks to make actionable defamatory statements in labor disputes published without knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard of the truth. Pp. 270273.
2. Federal labor laws favor uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate in labor disputes. Pp. 273279.
(a) The relevant law here is Executive Order No. 11491, governing labor relations in federal employment. The basic provisions of the Executive Order are like those of the National Labor Relations Act, and similarly afford wide latitude for union freedom of speech. The partial pre-emption of Linn is thus equally applicable here. Pp. 273279.
3. The trial court's instruction defining malice in common-law terms was erroneous and reflected a misunderstanding of Linn, which adopted the reckless-or-knowing-falsehood test of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686. Pp. 280282.
4. The state libel award arising out of the publication of the union news-letter here did not comport with the protection for freedom of speech in labor disputes recognized in Linn. The use of the epithet 'scab,' which was literally and factually true and is common parlance in labor disputes, was protected under federal law. Publication of the pejorative definition was likewise not actionable, since the use of words like 'traitor' cannot be construed as representations of fact and their use in a figurative sense to manifest the union's strong disagreement with the views of workers opposing unionization is also protected by federal law. Cf. Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn. v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 90 S.Ct. 1537, 26 L.Ed.2d 6. Pp. 282287.
* Appellant Old Dominion Branch No. 496 is a local union affiliated with the appellant National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO. At all times relevant to this case, the Branch was recognized by postal authorities as the exclusive local collective-bargaining representative of letter carriers in the Richmond, Virginia, area in accordance with § 10 of Executive Order No. 11491,
governing labor-management relations in the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Appellees, Henry M. Austin, L. D. Brown, and Roy P. Ziegengeist, were letter carriers in Richmond who neither were members of the Union nor paid any dues or fees to the Union.
App. 89. (Emphasis supplied.)
Appellees filed these defamation actions against the Branch and the National Association shortly after the June newsletter was published.
Appellants sought dismissal of the actions on the ground that the publication was protected speech under the First Amendment and under federal labor law. The trial judge recognized that this case involved the 'publications of a labor union which (were) relevant to and in the course of a campaign to organize federal employees.' App. 20. Nevertheless, he overruled the demurrers, interpreting this Court's decision in Linn v. Plant Guard Workers Local 114, 383 U.S. 53, 83 S.Ct. 657, 15 L.Ed.2d 582 (1966), to permit application of state libel laws in such circumstances as long as the statements were made with 'actual malice.' The judge defined 'actual malice' in his instructions to the jury as follows:
In Linn, an assistant general manager of Pinkerton's Detective Agency brought suit under state libel laws against the Plant Guard Workers in a diversity action in federal court. Linn alleged that statements made in a union leaflet during a campaign to organize the company's employees, which charged him with 'lying' to the employees and 'robbing' them of pay increases, were false and defamatory. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the National Labor Relations Board had exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint, finding that the union's conduct would arguably be an unfair labor practice under § 8(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 158(b), and that the Court's decision in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775 (1959), therefore compelled dismissal on pre-emption grounds. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
The basic provisions of the Executive Order establish a labor-management relations system for federal employment which is remarkably similar to the scheme of the National Labor Relations Act.
Indeed, one of the primary purposes of the Executive Order was to 'substantially strengthen the Federal labor relations system by bringing it more into line with practices in the private sector of the economy.' 5 Presidential Documents 1508 (Oct. 29, 1969) (announcement of the signing of Exec. Order No. 11491). Accordingly, while decisions under the NLRA may not be binding precedent under the Executive Order, the Assistant Secretary of Labor charged with administration of the Order has held that his decisions will 'take into account the experience gained in the private sector under the Labor-Management Relations Act.' Charleston Naval Shipyard Case Nos. 401940 (CA), 401950 (CA), A/SLMR No. 1, p. 3 (Nov. 3, 1970).
'It is a cliche by now but, nonetheless, an embedded policy in labor relations that electioneering or campaigning has a broad tolerance. We do not encourage, nor do we prohibit, the exaggeration, the dissemination of half-truth or accusation. In sum, we leave it to the employee to decide.'
And the Assistant Secretary has held that agency censorship of union materials, even if only to delete 'slanderous' or 'inflammatory' material, is unlawful interference with employee rights protected under the Order and an unfair labor practice under § 19(a)(1). Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center, Case No. 72CA3014(26), A/SLMR No. 283, App. 4 (June 30, 1973) (summarized in BNA Govt.Empl.Rel.Rep.No. 514, July 30, 1973, p. A 10).
We recognize that the Executive Order does not contain any provision corresponding to § 8(c) of the NLRA,
relied on in part by the Court in Linn. But the Court recognized that this section was primarily intended 'to prevent the Board from attributing anti-union motive to an employer on the basis of his past statements.' 383 U.S., at 6263, n. 5, 86 S.Ct., at 663 (emphasis added). A provision corresponding to § 8(c) was apparently thought unnecessary in the Executive Order because it directs the Government, as employer, to adopt a position of neutrality concerning unionization of its employees.
'Government officials do not mount 'vote no' campaigns.' Hampton, Federal Labor-Management Relations: A Program in Evolution, 21 Cath.U.L.Rev. 493, 502 (1972).
The primary source of protection for union freedom of speech under the NLRA, however, particularly in an organizational context, is the guarantee in § 7 of the Act of the employees' rights 'to form, join, or assist labor organizations.'
Vigorous exercise of this right 'to persuade other employees to join' must not be stifled by the threat of liability for the overenthusiastic use of rhetoric or the innocent mistake of fact. Thus, the Board has concluded that statements of fact or opinion relevant to a union organizing campaign are protected by § 7, even if they are defamatory and prove to be erroneous, unless made with knowledge of their falsity. See, e.g., Atlantic Towing Co., 75 N.L.R.B. 1169, 11711173 (1948). The Court in Linn recognized the importance of this § 7 protection, in words quite pertinent to this case:
'Likewise, in a number of cases, the Board has concluded that epithets such as 'scab,' 'unfair,' and 'liar' are commonplace in these struggles and not so indefensible as to remove them from the protection of § 7, even though the statements are erroneous and defame one of the parties to the dispute.' 383 U.S., at 6061, 86 S.Ct., at 662.
As noted, one of the primary reasons for the law's protection of union speech is to insure that union organizers are free to try peacefully to persuade other employees to join the union without inhibition or restraint. Accordingly, we think that any publication made during the course of union organizing efforts, which is arguably relevant to that organizational activity, is entitled to the protection of Linn. We see no reason to limit this protection to statements made during representation election campaigns. The protection of § 7 and § 1 is much broader. Indeed, Linn itself involved union organizing activity outside the election campaign context. We similarly reject any distinction between union organizing efforts leading to recognition and post-recognition organizing activity. Unions have a legitimate and substantial interest in continuing organizational efforts after recognition. Whether the goal is merely to strengthen or preserve the union's majority, or is to achieve 100% employee membershipa particularly substantial union concern where union security agreements are not permitted, as they are not here, see n. 2, suprathese organizing efforts are equally entitled to the protection of § 7 and § 1.
The courts below did not question the applicability of Linn to this case. Instead, both courts believed that Linn required only that the jury be instructed that it must find the defamatory statements to have been made with malice before it could impose liability. And both courts thought that instructions which defined malice in the common-law senseas 'hatred, personal spite, ill will, or desire to injure'were adequate under Linn.
Of course, the Court also said that recovery would be permitted if the defamatory statements were shown to have been made with malice. But the Court was obviously using 'malice' in the special sense it was used in New York Timesas a shorthand expression of the 'knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of the truth' standard. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S., at 279280, 84 S.Ct., at 726. Instructions which permit a jury to impose liability on the basis of the defendant's hatred, spite, ill will, or desire to injure are 'clearly impermissible.' Beckley Newspapers Corp. v. Hanks, 389 U.S. 81, 82, 88 S.Ct. 197, 198, 19 L.Ed.2d 248 (1967). '(I)ll will toward the plaintiff, or bad motives, are not elements of the New York Times standard.' Rosenbloom v. Metromedia, Inc., 403 U.S. 29, 52 n. 18, 91 S.Ct. 1811, 1824, 29 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971) (opinion of Brennan, J.). Accord, Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 7374, 7779, 85 S.Ct. 209, 215 216, 217218, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964); Henry v. Collins, 380 U.S. 356, 85 S.Ct. 992, 13 L.Ed.2d 892 (1965); Rosenblatt v. Baer, 383 U.S. 75, 84, 86 S.Ct. 669, 675, 15 L.Ed.2d 597 (1966); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn. v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 911, 90 S.Ct. 1537, 15391540, 26 L.Ed.2d 6 (1970). It is therefore clear that the libel judgments in this case must be reversed because of the court's erroneous instructions.
This, however, cannot be the end of our inquiry. The Court has often recognized that in cases involving free expression we have the obligation, not only to formulate principles capable of general application, but also to review the facts to insure that the speech involved is not protected under federal law. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S., at 284285, 84 S.Ct., at 728729; Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 574575, 88 S.Ct. 1731, 17371738, 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968); Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn. v. Bresler, supra, 398 U.S., at 11, 90 S.Ct., at 1540. 'We must 'make an independent examination of the whole record,' Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 235, 83 S.Ct. 680, 683, 9 L.Ed.2d 697, so as to assure ourselves that the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression.' New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, supra, 376 U.S., at 285, 84 S.Ct., at 729.
While this duty has been most often recognized in the context of claims that the expression involved was entitled to First Amendment protection, the same obligation exists in cases involving speech claimed to be protected under the federal labor laws. This obligation, derived from the supremacy of federal labor law over inconsistent state regulation, Hill v. Florida ex rel. Watson, 325 U.S. 538, 65 S.Ct. 1373, 89 L.Ed. 1782 (1945); Teamsters Local 24 v. Oliver, 358 U.S. 283, 295296, 79 S.Ct. 297, 304305, 3 L.Ed.2d 312 (1959), requires us to determine whether any state libel award arising out of the publication of the union newsletter involved here would be inconsistent with the protection for freedom of speech in labor disputes recognized in Linn.
It should be clear that the newsletter's use of the epithet 'scab' was protected under federal law and cannot be the basis of a state libel judgment. Rather than being a reckless or knowing falsehood, naming the appellees as scabs was literally and factually true. One of the generally accepted definitions of 'scab' is 'one who refuses to join a union,' Webster's Third New International Dictionary (unabridged ed. 1961), and it is undisputed that the appellees had in fact refused to join the Branch. To be sure, the word is most often used as an insult or epithet. But Linn recognized that federal law gives a union license to use intemperate, abusive, or insulting language without fear of restraint or penalty if it believes such rhetoric to be an effective means to make its point. Indeed, the Court observed that use of this particular epithet is common parlance in labor disputes and has specifically been held to be entitled to the protection of § 7 of the NLRA. 383 U.S., at 6061, 86 S.Ct., at 661662.
We cannot agree. We believe that publication of Jack London's rhetoric is equally entitled to the protection of the federal labor laws.
The sine qua non of recovery for defamation in a labor dispute under Linn is the existence of falsehood. Mr. Justice Clark put it quite bluntly: 'the most repulsive speech enjoys immunity provided it falls short of a deliberate or reckless untruth.' 383 U.S., at 63, 86 S.Ct., at 663. Before the test of reckless or knowing falsity can be met, there must be a false statement of fact. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S., at 339340, 94 S.Ct., at 3006 3007. But, in our view, the only factual statement in the disputed publication is the claim that appellees were scabs, that is, that they had refused to join the union.
The definition's use of words like 'traitor' cannot be construed as representations of fact. As the Court said long before Linn, in reversing a state court injunction of union picketing, 'to use loose language or undefined slogans that are part of the conventional give-and-take in our economic and political controversieslike 'unfair' or 'fascist'is not to falsity facts.' Cafeteria Employees Local 302 v. Angelos, 320 U.S. 293, 295, 64 S.Ct. 126, 127, 88 L.Ed. 58 (1943). Such words were obviously used here in a loose, figurative sense to demonstrate the union's strong disagreement with the views of those workers who oppose unionization. Expression of such an opinion, even in the most pejorative terms, is protected under federal labor law. Here, too, 'there is no such thing as a false idea. However pernicious an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries but on the competition of other ideas.' Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S., at 339340, 94 S.Ct., at 3007.
It is similarly impossible to believe that any reader of the Carrier's Corner would have understood the newsletter to be charging the appellees with committing the criminal offense of treason.
As in Bresler, Jack London's 'definition of a scab' is merely rhetorical hyperbole, a lusty and imaginative expression of the contempt felt by union members towards those who refuse to join. The Court in Linn recognized that such exaggerated rhetoric was commonplace in labor disputes and protected by federal law. Indeed, we note that the NLRB has held that the use of this very 'definition of a scab' is permissible under federal law. Cambria Clay Products Co., 106 N.L.R.B. 267, 273 (1953), enforced in pertinent part, 215 F.2d 48 (CA6 1954). It has become a familiar piece of trade union literature; according to undisputed testimony in this case, it has been published countless times in union publications over the last 30 years or more. Permitting state libel judgments based on publication of this piece of literature would be plainly inconsistent with the union's justifiable reliance on the protection of federal law.
This is not to say that there might not be situations where the use of this writing or other similar rhetoric in a labor dispute could be actionable, particularly if some of its words were taken out of context and used in such a way as to convey a false representation of fact. See Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn. v. Bresler, supra, 398 U.S., at 13, 90 S.Ct., at 1541. But in the context of this case, no such factual representation can reasonably be inferred, and the publication is protected under the federal labor laws.
Accordingly, the judgments appealed from must be reversed.
As the Court states, this case calls upon us to determine the extent to which state libel laws may be used to penalize statements expressed in the course of a labor dispute. In this instance Virginia's libel laws were used to impose massive damages
upon a labor union for publicly expressing, during the heat of an organizational drive, its highly pejorative but not too surprising opinion of 'scabs.' I agree that this expression is protected and that the judgments below cannot stand. Unlike the Court, however, I do not view the task of reconciling the competing state and federal interests in this area as a difficult one, nor do I view the federal interest as merely a matter of federal labor policy. I think that such expression is constitutionally protected and I cannot agree that there might be situations 'where the use of this writing or other similar rhetoric in a labor dispute could be actionable.'
We said in Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 102, 60 S.Ct. 736, 744, 84 L.Ed. 1993, that, '(i)n the circumstances of our times the dissemination of information concerning the facts of a labor dispute must be regarded as within that area of free discussion that is guaranteed by the Constitution.'
Since I do not think that discussion is free in the constitutional sense when it subjects the speaker to the penalty of libel judgments, in my view the ability of Congress or the Executive to formulate any labor policy penalizing those who might 'say naughty things during labor disputes'
is precisely nil. I believe the Framers did all the policymaking necessary in this area when they devised the constitutional framework which binds us all. As I stated in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., supra, 418 U.S. 323, at 356357, 94 S.Ct. 2997, at 3015, 41 L.Ed.2d 789, the First Amendment would prohibit Congress from passing any libel law
and the limitation on labor policy formulation is but an example of that general restriction.
If the States were not limited to the same extent as the Federal Government in restraining discussion, the pre-emptive effect of federal labor regulations would be crucial. But I have always thought that the application of the First Amendment to the States through the Fourteenth
leaves the States as constitutionally impotent as the Federal Government in enforcing such restrictions. This conclusion is compelled if freedom of speech is regarded, as I think it must, be as a privilege or immunity of United States citizenship within the meaning of that term in the Fourteenth Amendment rather than some ephemeral right protected against state intrusion only to the extent a majority of this Court might view as 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'
As I stated in my dissent to Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S., at 358359, 94 S.Ct., at 3016:
The result of Linn is a rule of partial pre-emption. The States may award libel judgments on the basis of the knowing-or-reckless-falsity formulation but are pre-empted from allowing defamation plaintiffs to recover under any less demanding standard of liability. The level of pre-emption is defined by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. But the Linn rule of partial pre-emption has another dimension, one that distinguishes the case at hand. That is the scope of the rulein other words, the range of circumstances in which state libel law is partially displaced by federal labor law. This is determined by the phrase 'labor dispute.'
In my view this is an unnecessary and unwise extension of Linn. Here there was no confrontation between powerful forces of labor and management, no clash of opposing economic interests that might warrant the attention of federal regulatory authorities, and hence no prospect whatever that reliance on state libel law might subvert the federal scheme for the fair and peaceful resolution of labor disputes. Yet the majority nevertheless holds that the state libel judgments entered below are pre-empted by federal labor law. This conclusion seems to me a needless denigration of the 'overriding state interest' in compensating individuals for injury to reputation. Moreover, it leaves these appellees without effective remedy for the wrong done them. Far from representing a powerful economic interest that could fight for itself within the federally created system of individual self-government, these appellees were defenseless individuals.
In their 'dispute' with the union, appellees found themselves in that state of helpless inequality that first gave social meaning to the labor movement. And after today's decision, the individual employee's exposure to harm without effective remedy is not limited to defamation by a labor union, for presumably a corporate employer may also claim the knowing-or-reckless-falsity privilege as a bar to liability for defamatory statements concerning an employee's decision to join or remain in a union. I do not believe Linn can fairly be construed to warrant any such regressive result.
It seems to me that the majority fails to distinguish between defamatory references to an anonymous group, class, or occupation, and a similar description of a named individual. It is one thing to say that lawyers are shysters and that doctors are quacks, but it is quite another matterindeed, it is libelous per seto publish that lawyer Jones is a shyster or that Dr. Smith is a quack. Here the union did not merely voice its opinion of 'scabs' generally; it identified these appellees by name and specifically impugned their character.
34 Fed.Reg. 17605 (1969), 3 CFR 861 (19661970 Compilation), as amended, 3 CFR 254 (1974). The Executive Order was promulgated on October 29, 1969, and became effective on January 1, 1970. It remains in effect with respect to most employees in the Executive Branch today. Postal employees, however, are no longer covered by the Executive Order. The Postal Reorganization Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 719, convered the cabinet-level Post Office Department into the United States Postal Service, an 'independent establishment of the executive branch,' 39 U.S.C. 201. As part of this reorganization, labor-management relations in the Postal Service were largely placed under the regulation of the National Labor Relations Act and the NLRB, effective July 1, 1971. See 39 U.S.C. 12011209. While the Branch apparently remains the exclusive bargaining representative for letter carriers in Richmond under the Postal Reorganization Act, this case arose during the brief period when the Executive Order was controlling.
The Postal Reorganization Act continues this prohibition of union security agreements, 39 U.S.C. 1209(c). The NLRA, of course, permits certain union security agreements, § 8(a)(3), 61 Stat. 140, 29 U.S.C. 158(a)(3), except insofar as they may violate state law, § 14(b), 29 U.S.C. 164(b). See Retail Clerks Local 1625 v. Schermerhorn, 375 U.S. 96, 84 S.Ct. 219, 11 L.Ed.2d 179 (1963).
These actions are actually based on Virginia's 'insulting words' statute, Va.Code Ann. § 8630 (1957), which provides:
However, the Virginia courts have held that '(a)n action for insulting words under Code, § 8630 is treated precisely as an action for slander or libel, for words actionable per se' with one exception not relevant here. Carwile v. Richmond Newspapers, Inc., 196 Va. 1, 6, 82 S.E.2d 588, 591 (1954). See opinion below in 213 Va. 377, 381, 192 S.E.2d 737, 740 (1972).
The Executive Order is plainly a reasonable exercise of the President's responsibility for the efficient operation of the Executive Branch. American Federation of Government Employees v. Hampton, 77 L.R.R.M. 2977 (DC), aff'd sub nom. Wolkomir v. Federal Labor Relations Council, 79 L.R.R.M. 2634 (CADC 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 920, 92 S.Ct. 954, 30 L.Ed.2d 791 (1972); Manhattan-Bronx Postal Union v. Gronouski, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 321, 350 F.2d 451 (1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 978, 86 S.Ct. 548, 15 L.Ed.2d 469 (1966); cf. United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548, 555, 93 S.Ct. 2880, 2885, 37 L.Ed.2d 796 (1973). Moreover, the Executive Order finds express statutory authorization in 5 U.S.C. 7301, which provides that '(t)he President may prescribe regulations for the conduct of employees in the executive branch.' In view of the substantial federal interests in effective management of the business of the National Government and exclusive control over the conduct of federal employees, and this congressional authorization, we have no difficulty concluding that the Executive Order is valid and may create rights protected against inconsistent state laws through the Supremacy Clause. See United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 230232, 62 S.Ct. 552, 565567, 86 L.Ed. 796 (1942); Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635637, 72 S.Ct. 863, 870871, 96 L.Ed. 1153 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring); Farkas v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 375 F.2d 629, 632 (CA5), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 977, 88 S.Ct. 480, 19 L.Ed.2d 471 (1967); Farmer v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 329 F.2d 3, 8 (CA3 1964).
See Naumoff, Ground Rules for Recognition under Executive Order 11491, 22 Lab.L.J. 100 (1970); cf. Hart, Government Labor's New Frontiers through Presidential Directive, 48 Va.L.Rev. 898, 904905 (1962) (discussing Exec. Order No. 10988, predecessor of the present Order).
See Hampton, supra, n. 7, at 501502.
'The Board may say, 'You can persuade them; you can put up signs; you can conduct any form of propaganda you want to in order to persuade them, but you cannot, by threat of force or threat of economic reprisal, prevent them from exercising their right to work." Id., at 287288, 80 S.Ct., at 714.
The view has been expressed that the First Amendment should accord protection only to explicitly political speech. See Bork, Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems, 47 Ind.L.J. 1, 20 (1971). Decisions such as Thornhill, however, reject any such emasculative reading of the First Amendment. As Mr. Justice Black has said: 'There is nothing in the language of the First Amendment to indicate that it protects only political speech, although to provide such protection was no doubt a strong reason for the Amendment's passage.' H. Black, A Constitutional Faith 46 (1969). The importance of free discussion in all areas was well perceived in this country before our constitutional scheme was formulated. In a letter sent to the inhabitants of Quebec in 1774, the Continental Congress spoke of 'five great rights,' stating in part: 'The last right we shall mention, regards the freedom of the press. The importance of this consists, besides the advancement of truth, science, morality, and arts in general, in its diffusion of liberal sentiments on the administration of Government . . ..' 1 Journals of the Continental Congress 17741789 p. 108 (Ford ed. 1904) (emphasis added).
See, e.g., Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 368369, 51 S.Ct. 532, 535536, 75 L.Ed. 1117, cases compiled in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S., at 359 n. 8, 94 S.Ct., at 3016 (Douglas, J., dissenting).