Court Opinion

ID: 9418084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:08:12.742563+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:55.286933
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Harlan,
dissenting.
I cannot agree that this writ of error should be dismissed.
By the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, it is provided.that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or abridgiiig the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for redress.” In the Civil Rights cases, 109 U. S. 1, 20, it was adjudged that *464the Thirteenth Amendment, although in form prohibitory, had a reflex character in that' it established and decreed universal civií and political freedom- throughout the United States. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 552, we held that the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances—one of the rights recognized in and protected by the First Amendment against hostile legislation by Congress—was an attribute' of “national citizenship.” So the First Amendment, although in form prohibitory, is to be regarded as having a reflex character and as affirmatively recognizing freedom of speech and freedom of .the press as rights belonging to citizens of -the United States; that is, those rights are to be deemed attributes of ..rational citizenship or citizenship of the United States. No one, I take it, will hesitate to say that a judgment of a Federal court, prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment-, impairing or abridging freedom of speech or of the press, would have been in violation of the rights of “citizens of the United States” as guaranteed by the First Amendment; this, for the reason that the rights of free speech and a free press were, as already said, attributes'of national citizenship before the Fourteenth Amendment was made a part of the Constitution. .
Now, the Fourteenth Amendment declares, in express words, -that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of- citizens of - the United States.” As the First Amendment guaranteed, the rights of free speech and of a free press against hostile action by the United States, it would seem clear that when the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited the States from impairing or abridging the privileges of citizens of the United States it necessarily prohibited'the States from impairing or abridging the constitutional rights of such citizens to free speech and a free press. ,But the court announces that it leaves undecided the specific question whether there is to be found in the Fourteenth Amendment a prohibition as to the rights of free *465speech and a free press similar to that in the First. It yet proceeds to say that the main purpose of such constitutional provisions was to prevent all such “previous restraints” upon publications as had been practiced by other governments, but not to prevent the subsequent punishment of such as may be deemed contrary to the public welfare. I cannot assent to that view, if it be meant that the legislature may-impair or abridge the rights of a free press and of free speech.whenever it thinks that the public welfare requires that to be done.. The public welfare cannot override constitutional privileges, and if the rights of free speech and of a free press are, in their essence, attributes of national citizenship, as I think they are, then neither Congress nor'any State since theiadoption of the. Fourteenth Amendment can, by legislative enactments or by judicial action, impair or abridge them. In my judgment, the action of the court below was in violation of the rights of free speech and a freepress as guaranteed by the Constitution.
I go further and hold .that the privileges of free speech and of a free press,' belonging tó every citizen of the United States, constitute essential parts of every man’s liberty, and are protected against violation by that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbidding a' State to deprive any person of his liberty without due process, of law. It is, I think, impossible to conceive of liberty, as secured by the Constitution against hostile action, whether by the Nation or by.the States, which does not embrace the right to enjoy free speech and the right to have a freepress. .