Opinion ID: 2618616
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: as to the enjoining of free speech

Text: In their specification of errors appellants assert that: The court lacked jurisdiction in the matter of the actions taken:       7. Because the court acted in violation of the rights of the defendants under the DUE PROCESS and EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW clauses of both State and Federal Constitutions. In their argument appellants state the following in regards to the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959: It provided that there shall be freedom of speech and assembly, without restraint by the union.       It seems obvious that the granting of an injunction herein infringes the appellants' Constitutional right of free speech, and abridges their right of trial by jury. In support of the above quoted language appellants cite Orloff v. Los Angeles Turf Club, 30 Cal.2d 110, 180 P.2d 321, 171 A.L.R. 913 (1947). Note also that immediately above the quoted language appellants cite Montgomery Ward & Co. v. United Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Employees, 400 Ill. 38, 79 N.E.2d 46, 49 (1948), which case deals extensively with the question of injunctions and infringement of free speech. Subsequently appellants state: It is clear that the granting of an injunction herein infringes appellants' right of free speech and abridges their right of trial by jury. In support of the above appellants again cite the Orloff case. (Note: Appellants also cite Salzhandler v. Caputo, 316 F.2d 445 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 946, 84 S.Ct. 344, 11 L.Ed.2d 275 (1963), which case deals with the right of speech under the LMRDA of 1959.) Appellee makes no reference to this issue of free speech in its brief. Upon the basis of the foregoing I concluded that appellants had adequately presented these issues for review upon their merits.