Case Name: PENNEKAMP et al. v. FLORIDA
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1946-06-03
Citations: 328 U.S. 331
Docket Number: No. 473
Parties: PENNEKAMP et al. v. FLORIDA.
Judges: Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 328
Pages: 331–372

Head Matter:
PENNEKAMP et al. v. FLORIDA.
No. 473.
Argued February 8, 1946.
Decided June 3, 1946.
Robert R. Milam and Elisha Hanson argued the cause for petitioners. With them on the brief were E. T. Mc-Ilvaine and Edward E. Fleming.
J. Tom Watson, Attorney General of Florida, James M. Carson and Giles J. Patterson argued the cause for respondent. With Messrs. Watson and Carson on the brief was Sumter Leitner, Assistant Attorney General.
William Harrison Mizell and Osmond K. Fraenkel filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union, as amicus curiae, urging reversal.

Opinion:
Mk. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This proceeding brings here for review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Florida, 156 Fla. 227, 22 So. 2d 875, which affirmed a judgment of guilt in contempt of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida, on a citation of petitioners by that Circuit Court.
The individual petitioner was the associate editor of the Miami Herald, a newspaper of general circulation, published in Dade County, Florida, and within the jurisdiction of the trial court. The corporate petitioner was the publisher of the Miami Herald. Together petitioners were responsible for the publication of two editorials charged by the citation to be contemptuous of the Circuit Court and its judges in that they were unlawfully critical of the administration of criminal justice in certain cases 'then pending before the Court.
Certiorari was granted to review petitioners' contention that the editorials did not present "a clear and present danger of high imminence to the administration of justice by the court" or judges who were criticized and therefore the judgment of contempt was invalid as violative of the petitioners' right of free expression in the press. The importance of the issue in the administration of justice at this time, in view of this Court's decision in Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252, three years prior to this judgment in contempt, is apparent.
Bridges v. California fixed reasonably well-marked limits around the power of courts to punish newspapers and others for comments upon or criticism of pending litigation. The case placed orderly operation of courts as the primary and dominant requirement in the administration of justice. Pages 263, 265, 266. This essential right of the courts to be free of intimidation and coercion was held to be consonant with a recognition that freedom of the press must be allowed in the broadest scope compatible with the supremacy of order. A theoretical determinant of the limit for open discussion was adopted from experience with other adjustments of the conflict between freedom of expression and maintenance of order. This was the clear and present danger rule. The evil consequence of comment must be "extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before utterances can be punished." Page 263. It was, of course, recognized that this formula, as would any other, inevitably had the vice of uncertainty, page 261, but it was expected that, from a decent self-restraint on the part of the press and from the formula's repeated application by the courts, standards of permissible comment would emerge which would guarantee the courts against interference and allow fair play to the good influences of open discussion. As a step toward the marking of the line, we held that the publications there involved were within the permissible limits of free discussion.
In the Bridges case the clear and present danger rule was applied to the stated issue of whether the expressions there under consideration prevented "fair judicial trials free from coercion or intimidation." Page 259. There was, of course, no question as to the power to punish for disturbances and disorder in the court room. Page 266. The danger to be guarded against is the "substantive evil" sought to be prevented. Pages 261, 262, 263. In the Bridges case that "substantive evil" was primarily the "disorderly and unfair administration of justice." Pages 270, 271, 278.
The Constitution has imposed upon this Court final authority to determine the meaning and application of those words of that instrument which require interpretation to resolve judicial issues. With that responsibility, we are compelled to examine for ourselves the statements in issue and the circumstances under which they were made to see whether or not they do carry a threat of clear and present danger to the impartiality and good order of the courts or whether they are of a character which the principles of the First Amendment, as adopted by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, protect. When the highest court of a state has reached a determination upon such an issue, we give most respectful attention to its reasoning and conclusion but its authority is not final. Were it otherwise the constitutional limits of free expression in the Nation would vary with state lines.
While there was a division of the Court in the Bridges case as to whether some of the public expressions by edi torial comment transgressed the boundaries of a free press and as to the phrasing of the test, there was unanimous recognition that California's power to punish for contempt was limited by this Court's interpretation of the extent of protection afforded by the First Amendment. Bridges v. California, supra, at 297. Whether the threat to the impartial and orderly administration of justice must be a clear and present or a grave and immediate danger, a real and substantial threat, one which is close and direct or one which disturbs the court's sense of fairness depends upon a choice of words. Under any one of the phrases, reviewing courts are brought in cases of this type to appraise the comment on a balance between the desirability of free discussion and the necessity for fair adjudication, free from interruption of its processes.
The editorials of November 2d and 7th, 1944, which caused the court to issue the citation are set out below. Accompanying the first editorial was a cartoon which held up the law to public obloquy. It caricatured a court by a robed compliant figure as a judge on the bench tossing aside formal charges to hand a document, marked "Defendant dismissed," to a powerful figure close at his left arm and of an intentionally drawn criminal type. At the right of the bench, a futile individual, labeled "Public Interest" vainly protests.
The citation charges that the editorials
"did reflect upon and impugn the integrity of said Court and the Judges thereof in imputing that the Judges of said Court 'do recognize and accept, even go out to find, every possible technicality of the law to protect the defendant, to block, thwart, hinder, embarrass and nullify prosecution/ which said acts by you tend to create a distrust for said court and the judges thereof in the minds of the people of this county and state and tend to prevent and prejudice a fair and impartial action of the said Court and the Judges thereof in respect to the said pending case[s]."
After setting out details of alleged willful withholding and suppression of the whole truth in the publications, the citation further charges that
"you, by said cartoon and editorial, have caused to be represented unto the public that concerning the cases of (A) the eight indictments for rape, (B) the said Brook Club case, and (C) the Teepee Club case, that the Judges of this Court [had not] fairly and impartially heard and decided the matters in said editorial mentioned and have thereby represented unto the general public that notwithstanding the great public trust vested in the Judges of this Court that they have not discharged their duties honorably and fairly in respect to said pending cases as hereinbefore set forth, all of which tends to obstruct and interfere with the said Judges as such in fairly and impartially administering justice and in the discharging of their duties in conformity with the true principles which you have so properly recognized in the forepart of said editorial above quoted as being incumbent upon them and each of them; . . ."
Petitioners were required to show cause why they should not be held in contempt.
Petitioners answered that the publications were legitimate criticism and comment within the federal guaranties of free press and created no clear and present danger to the administration of justice. They sought to justify the publications by stating in their return to the rule that the facts stated in the editorials were correct, that two of the cases used as examples were not pending when the comments were made, since orders of dismissal had been previously entered by the Circuit Court, and that they as editors
"had the right if not the duty openly and forcefully to discuss these conditions to the end that these evils that are profoundly disturbing to the citizens of this county, might be remedied. The publications complained of did nothing more than discuss the generally recognized weakness and breakdown in the system of law enforcement and call for its improvement."
It is not practicable to comment at length on each of the challenged items. To make our decision as clear as possible, we shall refer in detail only to the comments concerning the "Rape Cases." These we think fairly illustrate the issues and are the most difficult comments for the petitioners to defend.
As to these cases, the editorial said:
"This Week the people, through their grand jury, brought into court eight indictments for rape. Judge Paul D. Barns agreed with the defense that the indictments were not properly drawn. Back they went to the grand jury for re-presentation to the court."
We shall assume that the statement, "judicial instance and interpretative procedure . . . even go out to find, every possible technicality of the law to protect the defendant . . . and nullify prosecution," refers to the quashing of the rape indictments as well as other condemned steps. The comment of the last two paragraphs evidently includes these dismissals as so-called legal technicalities. See Note 4.
The citation charged that the prosecuting officer in open court agreed that the indictments were so defective as to make reindictment advisable. Reindictments were returned the next day and before the editorial. It was charged that these omissions were a wanton withholding of the full truth.
As to this charge, the petitioners made this return:
"That as averred in the citation, a motion was made to quash the indictment in Case 856, the ruling upon which would control in the other cases mentioned. Whereupon the representative of the State Attorney's Office stated in effect that he believed the original indictment was in proper form, but to eliminate any question he would have these defendants immediately re-indicted by the Grand Jury which was still then in session. And thereupon, the Judge of said Court did sustain the motion to quash with respect to Case No. 856."
The record of the Criminal Division of the Circuit Court, set out in the findings of fact at the hearing on the citation in contempt, shows that in case No. 856 the court upheld the defendants' motion to quash "with the ap pro val of the Assistant State Attorney" and quashed the remaining indictments on his recommendation. Reindictment of the accused on the next day, prompt arraignment and setting for trial also appears. We accept the record as conclusive of the facts.
We read the Circuit Court's judgment to find that the comment on the Rape Cases contained only "half-truths," that it did not "fairly report the proceedings" of the court, that it contained "misinformation." The judgment said:
"To report on court proceedings is a voluntary undertaking but when undertaken the publisher who fails to fairly report does so at his own peril.
"We find the facts recited and the charges made in the citation to be true and well founded; . . ."
This finding included the fact that reindictments were then pending in the Rape Cases. Defendants' assignments of error challenged the ruling that the matters referred to in the editorials were pending and the Supreme Court of Florida ruled that the cases were pending. 156 Fla. at 241,22 So. 2d at 883:
"We also agree that publications about a case that is closed no matter how scandalous, are not punishable as contempt. This is the general rule but the Florida Statute is more liberal than the rule."
Cf. Florida Statutes 1941, § 38.23 and § 932.03; see also 156 Fla. at 248,249,22 So. 2d at 886.
In Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252, 271-78, dissent 297-302, this Court looked upon cases as pending following completed interlocutory actions of the courts but awaiting other steps. In one instance it was sentence after verdict. In another, a motion for a new trial.
Pennekamp was fined $250 and the corporation, $1,000.00.
The Supreme Court of Florida restated the facts as to the Rape Cases from the record. 156 Fla. at 238, 22 So. 2d at 881. It then reached a conclusion as to all of the charges and so as to the Rape Cases in the words set out below. After further discussion of the facts, the Court said, 156 Fla. at 241,22 So. 2d at 883:
"In the light of this factual recitation, it is utter folly to suggest that the object of these publications was other than to abase and destroy the efficiency of the court."
To focus attention on the critical issue, we quote below from the decision of the Supreme Court of Florida certain excerpts which we believe fairly illustrate its position as to the applicable law.
From the editorials, the explanations of the petitioners and the records of the court, it is clear that the full truth in regard to the quashing of the indictments was not published. We agree with the Supreme Court that the Rape Cases were pending at the time of the editorials. We agree that the editorials did not state objectively the attitude of the judges. We accept the statement of the Supreme Court that under Florida law, "There was no judgment that could have been entered in any of them except the one that was entered." 156 Fla. at 240, 22 So. 2d at 882. And, although we may feel that this record scarcely justifies the harsh inference that the truth was willfully or wantonly or recklessly withheld from the public or that the motive behind the publication was to abase and destroy the efficiency of the courts, we may accept in this case that conclusion of the Florida courts upon intent and motive as a determination of fact. While the ultimate power is here to ransack the record for facts in constitutional controversies, we are accustomed to adopt the result of the state court's examination. It is the findings of the state courts on undisputed facts or the undisputed facts themselves which ordinarily furnish the basis for our appraisal of claimed violations of federal constitutional rights.
The acceptance of the conclusion of a state court as to the facts of a situation leaves open to this Court the determination of federal constitutional rights in the setting of those facts. When the Bridges case was here, there was necessarily involved a determination by the California state court that all of the editorials had, at least, a tendency to interfere with the fair administration of criminal justice in pending cases in a court of that state. Yet this Court was unanimous in saying that two of those editorials had no such impact upon a court as to justify a conviction of contempt in the face of the principles of the First Amendment. We must, therefore, weigh the right of free speech which is claimed by the petitioners against the danger of the coercion and intimidation of courts in the factual situation presented by this record.
Free discussion of the problems of society is a cardinal principle of Americanism — a principle which all are zealous to preserve. Discussion that follows the termination of a case may be inadequate to emphasize the danger to public welfare of supposedly wrongful judicial conduct. It does not follow that public comment of every character upon pending trials or legal proceedings may be as free as a similar comment after complete disposal of the litigation. Between the extremes there are areas of discussion which an understanding writer will appraise in the light of the effect on himself and on the public of creating a clear and present danger to fair and orderly judicial administration. Courts must have power to protect the interests of prisoners and litigants before them from unseemly efforts to pervert judicial action. In the borderline instances where it is difficult to say upon which side the alleged offense falls, we think the specific freedom of public comment should weigh heavily against a possible tendency to influence pending cases. Freedom of discussion should be given the widest range compatible with the essential requirement of the fair and orderly administration of justice.
While a disclaimer of intention does not purge a contempt, we may at this point call attention to the sworn answer of petitioners that their purpose was not to influence the court. An excerpt appears below. For circumstances to create a clear and present danger to judicial administration, a solidity of evidence should be required which it would be difficult to find in this record. Com pare Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U. S. 665, 670; Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U. S. 118.
The comments were made about judges of courts of general jurisdiction — judges selected by the people of a populous and educated community. They concerned the attitude of the judges toward those who were charged with crime, not comments on evidence or rulings during a jury trial. Their effect on juries that might eventually try the alleged offenders against the criminal laws of Florida is too remote for discussion. Comment on pending cases may affect judges differently. It may influence some judges more than others. Some are of a more sensitive fiber than their colleagues. The law deals in generalities and external standards and cannot depend on the varying degrees of moral courage or stability in the face of criticism which individual judges may possess any more than it generally can depend on the personal equations or individual idiosyncrasies of the tort-feasor. The Germanic, 196 U. S. 589, 596; Arizona Employers' Liability Cases, 250 U. S. 400, 422, 432. We are not willing to say under the circumstances of this case that these editorials are a clear and present danger to the fair administration of justice in Florida. Cf. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697, 714-15.
What is meant by clear and present danger to a fair administration of justice? No definition could give an answer. Certainly this criticism of the judges' inclinations or actions in these pending non-jury proceedings could not directly affect such administration. This criticism of their actions could not affect their ability to decide the issues. Here there is only criticism of judicial action already taken, although the cases were still pending on other points or might be revived by rehearings. For such injuries, when the statements amount to defamation, a judge has such remedy in damages for libel as do other public servants.
It is suggested, however, that even though his intellectual processes cannot be affected by reflections on his purposes, a judge may be influenced by a desire to placate the accusing newspaper to retain public esteem and secure reelection presumably at the cost of unfair rulings against an accused. In this case too many fine-drawn assumptions against the independence of judicial action must be made to call such a possibility a clear and present danger to justice. For this to follow, there must be a judge of less than ordinary fortitude without friends or support or a powerful and vindictive newspaper bent upon a rule or ruin policy, and a public unconcerned with or uninterested in the truth or the protection of their judicial institutions. If, as the Florida courts have held and as we have assumed, the petitioners deliberately distorted the facts to abase and destroy the efficiency of the court, those misrepresentations with the indicated motives manifested themselves in the language employed by petitioners in their editorials. The Florida courts see in this objectionable language an open effort to use purposely the power of the press to destroy without reason the reputation of judges and the competence of courts. This is the clear and present danger they fear to justice. Although we realize that we do not have the same close relations with the people of Florida that are enjoyed by the Florida courts, we have no doubt that Floridians in general would react to these editorials in substantially the same way as citizens of other parts of our common country.
As we have pointed out, we must weigh the impact of the words against the protection given by the principles of the First Amendment, as adopted by the Fourteenth, to public comment on pending court cases. We conclude that the danger under this record to fair judicial administration has not the clearness and immediacy necessary to close the door of permissible public comment. When that door is closed, it closes all doors behind it.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Compare Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47, 52; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 105; Carlson v. California, 310 U. S. 106, 113; Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 633.
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652, 666; Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697, 707.
Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252, 267. Compare Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227, 228; Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U. S. 652, 659.
November 2, 1944:
"Courts Are Established—
For the People
"The courts belong to the people. The people have established them to promote justice, insure obedience to the law and to Punish Those Who Willfully Violate It.
"The people maintain the courts by providing the salaries of officials and setting up costly chambers and courtrooms for the orderly and dignified procedure of the tribunals.
"Upon the judges the people must depend for the decisions and the judicial conduct that will insure society — as a whole and in its individuals — against those who would undermine or destroy the peace, the morality and the orderly living of the community.
"In Order that the courts should not be amenable to political or other pressures in their determination of matters placed before them, Florida Circuit judges are called upon to face the electorate less often than are other elective office holders.
"So long are their terms, in fact, that in Dade county no Circuit judge, and only one judge of another court, has come to the bench by public choice in the first instance. All the others have been named by a governor to fill a vacancy caused by death or resignation, or similar circumstance.
"Judicial terms in Dade county run:
1— Six years each for six Circuit judges.
2— Four years each for two Civil Court of Record judges.
3— Four years for the judge of the Criminal Court of Record.
4— Four years for the judge of the Court of Crimes.
5— Four years for County judge.
6— Four years for Juvenile court judge.
"These twelve judges represent the majesty and the sanctity of the law. They are the first line of defense locally of organized society against vice, corruption and crime, and the sinister machinations of the underworld. _
"It Is beyond question that American courts are of, by and for the people.
"Every accused person has a right to his day in court. But when judicial instance and interpretative procedure recognize and accept, even go out to find, every possible technicality of the law to protect the defendant, to block, thwart, hinder, embarrass and nullify prosecution, then the people's rights are jeopardized and the basic reason for courts stultified.
"The seeming ease and pat facility with which the criminally charged have been given technical safeguard have set people to wondering whether their courts are being subverted into refuges for lawbreakers.
"This Week the people, through their grand jury, brought into court eight indictments for rape. Judge Paul D. Barns agreed with the defense that the indictments were not properly drawn. Back they went to the grand jury for re-presentation to the court.
"Only in the gravest emergency does a judge take over a case from another court of equal jurisdiction. A padlock action against the Brook Club was initiated last spring before Judge George E. Holt, who granted a temporary injunction.
"After five months, the case appeared Tuesday out of blue sky before Judge Marshall C. Wiseheart at the time State Attorney Stanley Milledge was engaged with the grand jury.
"Speedy decision was asked by defense counsel despite months of stalling. The State Attorney had to choose between the grand jury and Judge Wiseheart's court.
"The judge dismissed the injunction against the club and its operators. The defense got delay when it wanted and prompt decision from the court when it profited it.
"On Oct. 10 Judge Holt had before him a suit by the state to abate a nuisance (bookmaking) at the Tepee Club.
"Five affidavits of persons who allegedly visited the premises for the purpose of placing bets were introduced by the state over the objection of the defendants.
"Judge Holt ruled them out, explaining in denying the injunction against the Tepee Club:
" 'The defendant cannot cross-examine an affidavit. The court cannot determine who is testifying and whether belief can be placed upon such testimony . . . The fact that such affidavits were taken before the State Attorney does not give them any additional weight or value.'
"This may be good law, exact judicial evaluation of the statutes. It is, however, the character of legal interpretation which causes people to raise questioning eyebrows and shake confused heads in futile wonderment. _
"If Technicalities are to be the order and the way for the criminally charged either to avoid justice altogether or so to delay prosecution as to cripple it, then it behooves our courts and the legal profession to cut away the deadwood and the entanglements.
"Make it possible for the state's case, the people's case, to be seen with equal clarity of judicial vision as that accorded accused lawbreakers. Otherwise technicalities and the courts make the law, no matter what the will of the people and of their legislators."
November 7, 1944:
"Why People Wonder
"Here is an example of why people wonder about the law's delays and obstructing technicalities operating to the disadvantage of the state — which is the people — in prosecutions.
"After stalling along for months, the defense in the padlock case against the Brook Club appeared before Judge Marshall C. Wiseheart for a decision. The State Attorney was working with the grand jury. The court knocked out the injunction. There was speed, dispatch, immediate attention and action for those charged with violation of the law. So fast that the people didn't get in a peep.
"That's one way of gumming up prosecution. Another is to delay action. On March 29, Coy L. Jaggears, bus driver, was sentenced to fifteen days in city jail by Judge Cecil C. Curry on conviction of beating up a taxicab operator.
"The arrest precipitated the notorious bus strike. As a result, Jaggears walked out of jail after posting a $200 appeal bond. The appeal never got further.
"There you have the legal paradox, working two ways, but to the same purpose against prosecution. Speed when needed. Month after month of delay when that serves the better."
156 Fla. 227, 239, 240, 22 So. 2d 875,882:
"So the vice in both the editorials was the distorted, inaccurate statement of the facts and with that statement were scrambled false insinuations that amounted to unwarranted charges of partisanship and unfairness on the part of the judges.
"The record was available in all these cases and it does not reveal a breath of suspicion on which to predicate partisanship and unfairness on the part of the judges. It is shown rather that they acted in good faith and handled each case to the very best advantage possible. There was no judgment that could have been entered in any of them except the one that was entered. If the editorials had stated the facts correctly, nothing but a correct conclusion could have been deduced and there would have been no basis for contempt but here they elected to publish as truth a mixture of factual misstatement and omission and impose on that false insinuation, distortion, and deception and then contend that freedom of the press immunizes them from punishment."
156 Fla. 227,244-249, 22 So. 2d 875,884-886:
"A newspaper may criticize, harass, irritate, or vent its spleen against a person who holds the office of judge in the same manner that it does a member of the Legislature and other elective officers, but it may not publish scurrilous or libelous criticisms of a presiding judge as such or his judgments for the purpose of discrediting the Court in the eyes of the public. Respect for courts is not inspired by shielding them from criticism. This is a responsibility of the judge, acquired over the years by the spirit in which he approaches the judicial process, his ability to humanize the law and square it with reason, the level of his thinking, the consistency of his adherence to right and justice, and the degree to which he holds himself aloof from blocs, groups, and techniques that would sacrifice justice for expediency."
"Courts cannot function in a free country when the atmosphere is charged with the effusions of a press designed to poison the mind of the public against the presiding judges rather than to clarify the issues and propagate the truth about them. The latter was the press that Mr. Jefferson visioned when he promulgated the thesis, 'Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press and that cannot be limited without being lost.' "
"Freedom to publish one's views is a principle of universal practice, but when the press deliberately abandons the proprieties and sets out to poison its pabulum or to sow dragons' teeth and dispense canards for the purpose of doing another a wrong, it is no different category from a free man that does likewise. The most rigid safeguard thrown around a free press would not protect appellants from falsely publishing or announcing to the world that the clergy of Miami were in sympathy with the practice of polygamy or were fostering other doctrines equally obnoxious to approved moral standards."
"The theory of our system of fair trial is that the determination of every case should be induced solely by evidence and argument in open court and the law applicable thereto and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print."
"The State Courts touch the public much more frequently than the Federal Courts and they have many reasons to enforce orderly administration that would not arise in the Federal Courts. If that power is to be construed by what appellants contend to be the pattern in the Bridges and Nye cases, then more than one hundred years of state law and decisions on the subject are turned into confusion or set at naught. . . .
"We do not think this can be the law. The Bridges case was disposed of on authority of the ' "clear and present danger" cases,' which are not analogous to most of the state eases because they arise from a different state of the law. The ultimate test in the Bridges case requires that the 'substantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before utterances can be punished.' Ev.en if this test is to [be] the rule in the State Courts, they are authorized to apply it by their own law and standards and unless the application is shown to be arbitrary and unreasonable, their judgment should not be disturbed. The law in Florida permits the most liberal exercise possible of freedom of the press but holds to account, those who abuse it.
"We therefore hold that the cartoon and the editorials afford ample support for the judgment imposed and that the issues were properly adjudicated under Florida law."
See IX Wigmore, Evidence (3d Ed.) § 2557. Crawford v. United States, 212 U. S. 183, 203.
Drivers Union v. Meadowmoor Co., 312 U. S. 287, 293-94; Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219, 238.
Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227, 239; Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U. S. 143, 152, 153, 154; Malinski v. New York, 324 U. S. 401, 404.
See the cases in the preceding paragraph, note 8.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105, 115; Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 639; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 527, 530.
Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. at 269:
"No suggestion can be found in the Constitution that the freedom there guaranteed for speech and the press bears an inverse ratio to the timeliness and importance of the ideas seeking expression. Yet, it would follow as a practical result of the decisions below that anyone who might wish to give public expression to his views on a pending case involving no matter what problem of public interest, just at the time his audience would be most receptive, would be as effectively discouraged as if a deliberate statutory scheme of censorship had been adopted."
"These respondents deny any intent by either said editorial or said cartoon either in words or otherwise to interfere with fair and impartial justice in the State of Florida and deny that the large character in the cartoon was beside the judge and on the bench and being heard, recognized and favored, but, on the contrary, these respondents respectfully show that it was the intention of said editorial and said cartoon to condemn and criticise the system of pleading and practice and procedure created by the laws of Florida, whereby such eases could long be delayed and then could be dismissed upon technical grounds in the manner herein shown."
We add Mr. Pennekamp's statement of the editorial policy of the Miami Herald:
" We are ourselves Free — Free as the Constitution we enjoy — Free to truth, good manners and good sense. We shall be for whatever measure is best adapted to defending the rights and liberties of the people and advancing useful knowledge. We shall labor at all times to inspire the people with a just and proper sense of their condition, to point out to them their true interest and rouse them to pursue it.' "