Your name
Date
Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 1949
Case name and year decided
337 U.S. 1
Legal citation
Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the disorderly conduct conviction of a man whose anti-Communist and anti-Zionist speech enraged his audience to violence. Writing for the majority, Justice William O. Douglas wrote that "a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea."
Background facts: Arthur Terminiello, a former Catholic priest who became an anti-Communist crusader, gave a shrill, anti-Semitic speech at an auditorium in Chicago. A cordon of policemen was assigned to the meeting to maintain order; but they were not able to prevent several disturbances. The crowd outside was angry and turbulent. Petitioner in his speech condemned the conduct of the crowd outside and vigorously, if not viciously, criticized various political and racial groups whose activities he denounced as inimical to the nation's welfare.
An angry mob of about a thousand protestors threw bricks and bottles, smashed windows and nearly broke into the hall. Terminiello was fined $100 for breach of the peace, which the judge defined as including speech which "stirs the public to anger, invites dispute, brings about a condition or unrest, or creates a disturbance."_
Dissent: Justice Jackson argued that the "danger of rioting and violence in response to the speech was clear, present and immediate," and that the state has the responsibility to punish someone who touches off a public riot. "No mob has ever protected any liberty, even its own, but if not put down it always winds up in an orgy of lawlessness which respects no liberties... The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."
Significance: The Supreme Court threw doubt on the idea of the "heckler's veto," or the idea that the reaction of the listener(s) can determine whether or not speech is constitutionally punishable. The court also emphasized the importance of allowing as much breathing room as possible for unpopular speech. Additionally, the court did not seem to endorse the idea that the "fighting words" exception to free speech applies in cases like this.
However, Justice Jackson's dissent also commands some respect, voicing the concern that unlimited free speech could give rise to anarchy.