Barker et al. v. Commonwealth
| Decision Date | 01 January 1858 |
| Parties | Barker, et al., versus Commonwealth. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
The two first counts in the indictment charge the defendants below with committing a common nuisance in the public highways and streets of the city of Pittsburgh, by causing to assemble and remain therein for a long space of time, great numbers of men and boys, so that the streets were obstructed and the public were interrupted in the enjoyment of their rights of passing and repassing. It is averred that the crowd was collected by means of "violent, loud, and indecent language addressed to persons passing and repassing along the highway, and to persons thereabouts." In the second count the assemblage is alleged to consist of "men and boys, and idle, dissolute, and disorderly people."
The streets are common highways, designed for the use of the public in passing and repassing, and in such temporary occupancy as are incidental to the exercise of these rights, or necessarily connected with them. No one has a right to obstruct a public street by collecting therein a large assemblage of men and boys, for the purpose of addressing them in "violent, loud, and indecent language." The common highways were designed for no such purpose. If the purposes of the meeting be lawful, a suitable place can be obtained for it, without obstructing the public in their undoubted right of passing along their own highway. The liberty of speech does not require that the clear legal rights of the whole community shall be violated. The freedom of the press is as well deserving protection as the liberty of speech; but no one, in his wildest enthusiasm in favor of the former, has claimed the right to establish printing presses in the public streets. One of Hoe's printing presses would certainly be as effectual in collecting a crowd as the indecent and violent harangues described in this indictment. The nuisance, in the one case, would be quite respectable in its nature and objects compared with the demoralizing character of the other. But both are prohibited by law, as infractions of the public right of passage.
In the third count the defendants are charged with "openly and publicly speaking with a loud voice, in the hearing of the citizens, &c., wicked, scandalous, and infamous words, representing men and women in obscene and indecent positions and attitudes." And...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. MacDonald
...25 A. 162 (1892); Commonwealth v. Hauck, 103 Pa. 536 (1883); Northern Central Ry. Co. v. Commonwealth, 90 Pa. 300 (1879); Barker v. Commonwealth, 19 Pa. 412 (1852); Commonwealth v. Church, 1 Pa. 105 (1845); Commonwealth v. Milliman, 13 Serg. & R. 402 (Pa.1825); Commonwealth v. Passmore, 1 S......
-
State v. Maynard
...arouse lustful feelings. There can be no doubt about what the man and the woman in the picture were doing. Similarly, in Barker v. Commonwealth, 19 Pa. 412, 413 (1852), the defendant was indicted for publicly describing "men and women in obscene and indecent positions * * * with intention `......
-
RKO-Stanley Warner Theatres, Inc. v. Mellon Nat. B. & T. Co.
...from making such stops thereon `as business, necessity, accident, or the ordinary exigencies of travel may require'"). 20 Barker v. Commonwealth, 19 Pa. 412 (1852) ("The streets are common highways, designed for the use of the public in passing and repassing, and in such temporary occupancy......
-
Long v. 130 Market St. Gift & Novelty of Johnstown
...only that on its face the right to publish would appear absolute, and hence that the right is arguably absolute.14 See also Barker v. Commonwealth, 19 Pa. 412 (1852); Commonwealth v. Blumenstein, 396 Pa. 417, 153 A.2d 227 (1959); William Goldman Theatres, Inc. v. Dana, supra; Commonwealth v......