Willing v. Mazzocone - 482 Pa. 377, 393 A.2d 1155 (1978)

Rule:

Pa. Const. art I, § 7 is designed to prohibit the imposition of prior restraints upon the communication of thoughts and opinions, leaving the utterer liable only for an abuse of the privilege.

Facts:

Defendant Helen Willig, a former client of plaintiff law firm, protested in front of the building in which the law firm was located. Defendant wore a placard that proclaimed plaintiff had stolen money from her and rang a cowbell and blew a whistle to attract attention. The trial court's grant of injunctive relief to plaintiff was slightly modified and affirmed by the appellate court. On review, defendant argued that the injunction against further demonstrations violated her constitutional right to freedom of speech.

Issue:

Did the injunction in question violate defendant’s constitutional right to freedom of speech? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court agreed with defendant’s contention, and accordingly modified the decrees of the lower court. The Court held that the injunction constituted a prior restraint of speech that violated both the federal and state constitutions. The Court also determined that plaintiff was not entitled to equitable relief because it had an adequate remedy at law by way of an action for defamation. The Court vehemently rejected the notion that plaintiff should not be required to pursue its available legal remedies simply because defendant was unable to pay a damage award, noting that in Pennsylvania the insolvency of a defendant would not create a situation where there was no adequate remedy at law.