§ 1979 and Jud.Code § 24(14) afford redress in a federal court for such abridgment. (a) Freedom to disseminate information concerning the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, to assemble peaceably for discussion of the Act and of the opportunities and advantages offered by it, is a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States secured against state abridgment by § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, and R.S. The District Court had jurisdiction under Jud.Code, § 24(14). (c) Complainants may not aggregate their interests in order to attain the requisite jurisdictional amount. (b) The record in this suit is bare of any showing of the value of the asserted rights to the complainants individually. (a) In suits under § 24(1), a traverse of the allegation as to the amount in controversy, or a motion to dismiss based upon the absence of such amount calls for substantial proof on the part of the plaintiff of facts justifying the conclusion that the suit involves the necessary sum. The District Court lacked jurisdiction under Jud.Code § 24(1). PER ROBERTS, J., with whom BLACK, J., concurred. Insofar as the decree relates to distribution of literature and holding of meetings, the decree should enjoin enforcement of the void ordinances, and not undertake to enumerate the conditions under which those activities may he carried on. The decree properly enjoined interference with the right of plaintiffs, their agents etc., to communicate their views as individuals to others on the streets in an orderly and peaceable manner, reserving the right of defendants to enforce law and order by lawful search and seizure or arrest. Provisions of the decree enjoining forcible removal of plaintiffs or exercise of personal restraint over them without warrant, or confinement without lawful arrest and production for prompt judicial hearing, saving lawful search and seizure, or interference with their free access to streets, parks or public places of the city - are not vague and impracticable. The ordinances and their enforcement violate the rights under the Constitution of the individual plaintiffs, citizens of the United States but a complaining corporation cannot claim such rights. The case is within the jurisdiction of the District Court. In a suit to enjoin municipal officers from enforcing ordinances forbidding the distribution of printed matter, and the holding without permits of public meetings, in streets and other public places,ġ. Public forums, such as parks, sidewalks, and streets, have broad First Amendment protections because of their traditional function as places for community interactions. content-specific analysis, is more focused on the place where the speech takes place than the nature of the speech. This section of First Amendment jurisprudence, distinct from content-neutral vs. The First Amendment does not permit granting so much discretion to the defendant, who should not have the opportunity to improperly place prior restraints on speech. The public long has used streets and parks to assemble and transmit ideas and speech on issues of public concern. The CIO argued against the constitutionality of the ordinance. Hague used this authority to deny a permit to members of the Committee for Industrial Organization, who sought to organize workers into a labor union and requested access to the streets and parks of Jersey City for that purpose. Hague, the Jersey City Director of Safety, was authorized under a local ordinance to refuse a permit to assemble in public if he reached an individual decision based on his own judgment that it would help to forestall riots, disturbances, or other forms of disorder.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |