Free Speech

Case - 390 U.S. 611

Parties: Cameron v. Johnson

Date: 1968-04-22

Identifiers:

Opinions:

Segment Sets:

Paragraph: 6 - The argument centers on the fact that the proscription of the statute embraces picketing employed as a vehicle for constitutionally protected protest. But N17* 'picketing and parading (are) subject to regulation even though intertwined with expression and association,' Cox v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 563, 85 S.Ct. 476, 480, 13 L.Ed.2d 487, and this statute does not prohibit picketing so intertwined unless engaged in in a manner which obstructs or unreasonably interferes with ingress or egress to or from the courthouse. Prohibition of conduct which has this effect does not abridge constitutional liberty N18* 'since such activity bears no necessary relationship to the freedom to * * * distribute information or opinion.'

Notes:

  • N18* / quote / endorsement / Q0060 /

Preferred Terms:

  • (reg) picketing

Phrase match:

Source: http://freespeech.iath.virginia.edu/exist-speech/cocoon/freespeech/FOS_newSTerms_One?doc=/db/fos_all/federal/SC/1960s/19680422.390.US.611.xml&keyword1= expression protected expression&wordsBefore=&wordsAfter=#m1

Search time: 2018-04-26 09:34:45 Searcher: clm6u Editor: ars9ef tcs9pk Segmenter: ars9ef tcs9pk