Com. v. Jacobs

• Decision Date: 07 November 1955
• Citation: 333 Mass. 204,129 N.E.2d 620
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. Cyrus L. JACOBS.

Page 620

129 N.E.2d 620

333 Mass. 204

COMMONWEALTH v. Cyrus L. JACOBS.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

Argued Oct. 5, 1955.

Decided Nov. 7, 1955.

Charles J. Kickham, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Boston, for the commonwealth.

Lester S. Cramer, Boston, for defendant.

Before QUA, C. J., and RONAN, WILKINS, SPALDING and COUNIHAN, JJ.

QUA, Chief Justice.

The defendant has been convicted of violating an ordinance of the city of Quincy in that on March 25, 1955, 'he did publicly address the people on and passing over a certain public street' without having first obtained a permit in writing from the license commissioners. Under hire by a labor union he operated a so called sound truck which played a record urging listeners not to buy products of a concern against which the union was maintaining a strike. The operator could control the volume of amplification by means of a switch.

The ordinance read as follows: 'Sec. 22. Meetings and Speaking in Public Streets and Grounds--Permit.

'No open-air public meeting shall be held in any public street or public grounds of the city, or upon any ground abutting upon any street or public way in the city, and no person shall publicly address the people on or passing over any public street or grounds in the city, unless a permit in writing therefor shall first be obtained from the board of license commissioners of the city.'

We are of opinion that the ordinance is unconstitutional on its face. It is a complete and indiscriminate prohibition of all public address on all public streets or grounds without a previous permit. In drafting the ordinance no attempt was made to separate out those features of public addresses that might disturb the safety, peace, or comfort of the public, such as inciting to violence, blocking of streets or ways, damage to public property, making of loud and unreasonable noise, or other unfortunate incidents affecting either public or private rights that may or may not accompany public addresses in public places. All public address without previous censorship is placed under the ban regardless of its character, attributes, or consequences. The case falls within a series of decisions in recent years both by this court and by the Supreme Court of the United States. Commonwealth v. Pascone, 308 Mass. 591, 593-594, 33 N.E.2d 522; Kenyon v. Chicopee, 320 Mass. 528, 531, 70 N.E.2d 241, 175 A.L.R. 430; Commonwealth v. Gilfedder, 321 Mass. 335, 73 N.E.2d 241; Commonwealth v. Dubin, 327 Mass. 681, 100 N.E.2d 843; Brattle Films, Inc., v. Commissioner of Public Safety, Mass., 127 N.E.2d 891; Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496, 59 S.Ct. 954, 83 L.Ed. 1423; Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147, 60 S.Ct. 146, 84 L.Ed. 155; Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413, 63 S.Ct. 669, 87 L.Ed. 869; Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U.S. 268, 71 S.Ct. 325, 328, 95 L.Ed. 267; Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290, 71 S.Ct. 312, 95 L.Ed. 280. But compare Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U.S. 395, 73 S.Ct. 760...