FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   910   911   912   913   914   915   916   917   918   919   920   921   922   923   924   925   926   927   928   929   930   931   932   933   934  
935   936   937   938   939   940   941   942   943   944   945   946   947   948   949   950   951   952   953   954   955   956   957   958   959   >>   >|  
in a highway or public park is no more an infringement of the rights of a member of the public than for the owner of a private house to forbid it in the house. When no proprietary right interferes the legislature may end the right of the public to enter upon the public place by putting an end to the dedication to public uses. So it may take the less step of limiting the public use to certain purposes."[145] Forty-two years later this case was distinguished in Hague _v._ C.I.O.[146] (_See_ p. 808.) And in 1948 in Saia _v._ New York[147] an ordinance forbidding the use of sound amplification devices by which sound is cast directly upon the streets and public places, except with permission of the chief of police, for the exercise of whose discretion no standards were prescribed, was held unconstitutional as applied to one seeking leave to amplify religious lectures in a public park. The decision was a five-to-four holding; and eight months later a majority, comprising the former dissenters and the Chief Justice, held it to be a permissible exercise of legislative discretion to bar sound trucks, with broadcasts of public interest, amplified to a loud and raucous volume, from the public ways of a municipality.[148] Conversely, it was within the power of the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia, following a hearing and investigation, to issue an order permitting the Capital Transit Company, despite the protest of some of its patrons, to receive and amplify on its street cars and buses radio programs consisting generally of 90% music, 5% announcements, and 5% commercial advertising. Neither operation of the radio service nor the action of the Commission permitting it was precluded by the First and Fifth Amendments.[149] Under still unoverruled decisions an ordinance forbidding any distribution of circulars, handbills, advertising, or literature of any kind within the city limits without permission of the City Manager is an unlawful abridgment of freedom of the press.[150] So also are ordinances which forbid, without exception, any distributions of handbills upon the streets.[151] Even where such distribution involves a trespass upon private property in a company owned town,[152] or upon Government property in a defense housing development,[153] it cannot be stopped. The passing out of handbills containing commercial advertising may, however, be prohibited; this is true even where such handbills may contain
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   910   911   912   913   914   915   916   917   918   919   920   921   922   923   924   925   926   927   928   929   930   931   932   933   934  
935   936   937   938   939   940   941   942   943   944   945   946   947   948   949   950   951   952   953   954   955   956   957   958   959   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

public

 

handbills

 
advertising
 

Commission

 

ordinance

 

distribution

 

forbidding

 
amplify
 

commercial

 

permitting


permission

 

exercise

 

discretion

 

streets

 
private
 

forbid

 

property

 

prohibited

 

consisting

 

programs


generally

 

service

 
action
 
operation
 
Neither
 

announcements

 
street
 

investigation

 
Capital
 
hearing

District
 

Columbia

 
Transit
 
Company
 

receive

 

precluded

 
patrons
 
protest
 

Amendments

 
abridgment

freedom

 

unlawful

 

Manager

 

limits

 

trespass

 

distributions

 
company
 

ordinances

 
exception
 

unoverruled