Cox v. Louisiana - 379 U.S. 536, 85 S. Ct. 453 (1965)

Rule:

A statute which upon its face, and as authoritatively construed, is so vague and indefinite as to permit the punishment of the fair use of the opportunity for free speech and assembly is repugnant to the guaranty of liberty contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Facts:

Defendant was the leader of a civil rights demonstration in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, of 2,000 Negro students protesting segregation and the arrest and imprisonment the previous day of other Negro students who had participated in a protest against racial segregation. The group assembled a few blocks from the courthouse, where defendant identified himself to officers as the group’s leader and explained the purpose of the demonstration. Following his refusal to disband the group, defendant led it in an orderly march toward the courthouse. With an official permission, the group, in an orderly manner, sang, prayed, and listened to the defendant's speech. The group, however, failed to disperse on police order that they had exceeded their time for demonstrating. Defendant was convicted of disturbing the peace, obstructing public passages, and picketing before a courthouse. Defendant appealed his conviction and the lower court affirmed.

Issue:

Because of his conduct in a demonstration, could the defendant be held guilty of violating the state’s “disturbing the peace” statute? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The Court reversed, holding that the breach of the peace conviction infringed the defendant’s rights of free speech and assembly because he did not engage in any conduct which the state had a right to prohibit as a breach of the peace. According to the Court, the breach of the peace statute, as construed by the state courts' definition of breach of the peace as to agitate or to disquiet, was unconstitutionally broad in scope in that it would allow punishment merely for peacefully expressing unpopular view. Moreover, the Court held that the conviction for unlawfully obstructing public passages was an unwarranted abridgment of the defendant's freedom of speech and assembly because the city authorities permitted or prohibited parades or street meetings in their completely uncontrolled discretion.