Valentine v. Chrestensen
| Decision Date | 13 April 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 707,707 |
| Parties | VALENTINE v. CHRESTENSEN |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. William C. Chanler, of New York City (Messrs. Leo Brown and William B. Trafford, both of New York City, on the brief), for petitioner.
Mr. Walter W. Land, of New York City, for respondent.
The respondent, a citizen of Florida, owns a former United States Navy submarine which he exhibits for profit. In 1940 he brought it to New York City and moored it at a State pier in the East River. He prepared and printed a handbill advertising the boat and soliciting visitors for a stated admission fee. On his attempting to distribute the bill in the city streets, he was advised by the petitioner, as Police Commissioner, that this activity would violate § 318 of the Sanitary Code which forbids distribution in the streets of commercial and business advertising matter,1 but was told that he might freely distribute handbills solely devoted to 'information or a public protest.'
Respondent thereupon prepared and showed to the petitioner, in proof form, a double-faced handbill. On one side was a revision of the original, altered by the removal of the statement as to admission fee but consisting only of commercial advertising. On the other side was a protest against the action of the City Dock Department in refusing the respondent wharfage facilities at a city pier for the exhibition of his submarine, but no commercial advertising. The Police Department advised that distribution of a bill containing only the protest would not violate § 318, and would not be restrained, but that distribution of the double-faced bill was prohibited. The respondent, nevertheless, proceeded with the printing of his proposed bill and started to distribute it. He was restrained by the police.
Respondent then brought this suit to enjoin the petitioner from interfering with the distribution. In his complaint he alleged diversity of citizenship; an amount in controversy in excess of $3,000; the acts and threats of the petitioner under the purported authority of § 318; asserted a consequent violation of § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution; and prayed an injunction. The District Court granted an interlocutory injunction,2 and after trial on a stipulation from which the facts appear as above recited, granted a permanent injunction. The Circuit Court of Appeals, by a divided court, affirmed.3
The question is whether the application of the ordinance to the respondent's activity was, in the circumstances, an unconstitutional abridgement of the freedom of the press and of speech.
1. This court has unequivocally held that the streets are proper places for the exercise of the freedom of communicating information and disseminating opinion and that, though the states and municipalities may appropriately regulate the privilege in the public interest, they may not unduly burden or proscribe its employment in these public thoroughfares. We are equally clear that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Airport Car Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 338.
...of protection to purely commercial activity that it does to attempts at political persuasion," citing Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52, 62 S.Ct. 920, 86 L.Ed. 1262 (1942) and Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622, 71 S.Ct. 920, 95 L.Ed. 1233 (1951). Six years after Whitten, however, the C......
-
Mandel v. Municipal Court for Oakland-Piedmont Judicial Dist., Alameda County
...729, 457 P.2d 561; In re Hoffman, supra, 67 Cal.2d 845, 847 and 849, 64 Cal.Rptr. 97, 434 P.2d 353; and cf. Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) 316 U.S. 52, 62 S.Ct. 920, 86 L.Ed. 1262 (commercial 'First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment......
-
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego
...73 Wash.2d 405, 439 P.2d 248.) 13 Plaintiffs note that some of the decisions in point relied heavily on Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) 316 U.S. 52, 62 S.Ct. 920, 86 L.Ed. 1262in which the Supreme Court declared that "the Constitution imposes no . . . restraint on government as respects pur......
-
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego
...supra, 73 Wash.2d 405, 439 P.2d 248.) Plaintiffs note that some of the decisions in point relied heavily on Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942) 316 U.S. 52, 62 S.Ct. 920, 86 L.Ed. 1262, in which the Supreme Court declared that "the Constitution imposes no . . . restraint on government as respec......
-
All Native Advertising Is Not Equal: Why That Matters Under The First Amendment And Why It Should Matter To The FTC Part III
...p. 2-8 (2d Ed. 2013). 11 See Kozinski & Stewart Banner at 627-628; Brody & Johnson, §2:2 at 2-8. 12 Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52 (1942). In Valentine, the Court analyzed whether handbills, distributed on the streets of New York City were protected by the First Amendment whe......
-
The First Amendment And The Emerging Tort Of Off-Label 'Promotion'
...(quoting Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. at 71, n. 20 (1983)). 19 Thompson, 535 U.S. at 373. 20 Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52 21 Id. at 54. 22 Va. Pharmacy Bd., 425 U.S. 748, 783 (1976). 23 421 U.S. 809 (1975) (Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U.S. 809 (1975)). 24 Bolger, 463 U......
-
The Tort Of Off-Label Promotion: US v Caronia - Just In Time For The Holidays, A Gift You May Not Be Able To Return
...the Supreme Court held that, "[T]he Constitution imposes no such restraint on government as respects purely commercial advertising." 316 U.S. 52, 54 (1942). From that ruling grew generations of cases confounding the public beyond comprehension and leaving legal scholars pleasantly divided. ......
-
The "watchman for Truth": Professional Licensing and the First Amendment
...as a form of commercial speech (which at that time was wholly unprotected by the First Amendment, see, e.g., Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52 (1942)), since it arguably proposes a form of commercial transaction. However, if this is so, the Court does not explain why group solicitation ......
-
Do Not Knock? Lovell to Watchtower and Back Again
...See Note, Dissent, Corporate Cartels, & the Commercial Speech Doctrine , 120 HARV. L. REV. 1892, 1898 (2007). 15 447 U.S. 557 (1980). 16 316 U.S. 52 (1942). Where Chrestensen is correctly referred to as the fountainhead, Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. , 425......
-
The Landmark That Wasn't: a First Amendment Play in Five Acts
...speaker or the message. 64. 447 U.S. 557 (1980). Overruling several decades of precedent holding otherwise, see Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52, 54 (1942) ("We are equally clear that the Constitution imposes no such restraint on government as respects purely commercial advertising."),......
-
Table of Cases
...2882, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976), 1226-27 Utah v. Evans, 536 U.S. 452, 122 S.Ct. 2191, 153 L.Ed.2d 453 (2002), 834 V Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52, 62 S.Ct. 920, 86 L.Ed. 1262 (1942), Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 46......