Feiner v. New York
Feiner v. New York is a significant Supreme Court case from 1951 that addressed the balance between free speech and public order. The case involved Irving Feiner, a college student who was arrested for making a provocative speech that elicited a mixed and unruly response from a racially and politically diverse audience. Despite his claims of First Amendment protection, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction under a New York law prohibiting "breach of the peace" through abusive language. The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, argued that the government had the right to intervene to prevent a clear and present danger to public safety.
Dissenting opinions, notably from Justices Hugo L. Black and William O. Douglas, contended that Feiner was being punished for his unpopular political views, raising concerns about the implications for free speech. The case later became a point of reference in discussions about free speech, particularly in relation to the more protective stance taken in later rulings like Brandenburg v. Ohio. Feiner v. New York illustrates the ongoing tension between maintaining public order and upholding constitutional rights, a debate still relevant in contemporary discourse about freedom of expression.
Feiner v. New York
Date: January 15, 1951
Citation: 340 U.S. 315
Issue: Freedom of speech
Significance: In this street oratory case, the Supreme Court tolerated a level of government control of speech that is no longer acceptable.
Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson wrote the opinion for the 6-3 majority over strong dissents from Justices Hugo L. Black, William O. Douglas, and Sherman Minton. Irving Feiner, a college student, stood on a box making a speech to a racially and politically mixed audience of more than seventy people who had a strongly mixed reaction to the speech and seemed to become unruly. Feiner refused to stop even after requested to do so by a police officer and was arrested for violating a New York law making it a “breach of the peace” to use intentionally “abusive language.” Despite Feiner’s assertion of First Amendment protection, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction as necessary to stop a “clear and present danger to public safety.” Black’s strong dissent argued that Feiner was being punished for unpopular political views. Similar speech was judged to be under First Amendment protection in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).
