Isabella Carter
The 1951 Supreme Court case Feiner v. New York addressed the constitutional issue of whether speech that incites a breach of the peace constitutes an exception to the First Amendment right to free speech. The case involved the arrest of Irving Feiner, a college student, for violating a New York law that forbade the incitement of a breach of the peace. Feiner had made an inflammatory speech to a racially and politically mixed crowd, urging them to rise up in arms and fight for equal rights, and refused to comply with police requests to stop speaking. The Supreme Court upheld Feiner's arrest and conviction, finding that his speech constituted incitement to riot and that the police acted to prevent a breach of the peace, setting a precedent for the tension between maintaining public order and upholding free speech rights.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date | March 1949 |
| Petitioner | Irving Feiner, a college student |
| Respondent | People of the State of New York |
| Issue | Whether Feiner's speech incited a "breach of the peace" and constituted an exception to the First Amendment |
| Facts | Feiner addressed a racially and politically mixed crowd on a street corner in Syracuse, NY, urging them to "rise up in arms and fight for equal rights" and making derogatory remarks about political officials. The police received a complaint and asked Feiner to stop speaking, but he refused and was arrested. |
| Trial Outcome | Feiner was convicted of violating Section 722 of the Penal Code of New York, "inciting a breach of the peace." |
| Appellate Outcome | The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Feiner's conviction, finding that his arrest was based on the potential for a riot and not the content of his speech. |
| Significance | The case addressed the tension between maintaining public order and upholding free speech rights, with dissenting opinions warning of the potential for majority tyranny and censorship. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The constitutional right to free speech
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to free speech. However, this right is not absolute, and certain types of speech, such as incitement to violence or breach of the peace, may be restricted. This was the central issue in the case of Feiner v. New York (1951), which addressed the question of whether speech that incites a "breach of the peace" loses its protection under the First Amendment.
On March 8, 1949, Irving Feiner, a college student, gave a speech to a racially mixed crowd in Syracuse, New York. Feiner stood on a box and used a loudspeaker to address the crowd, urging them to "rise up in arms and fight for equal rights". He also made derogatory remarks about President Harry S. Truman and other political officials. The police received a complaint about the gathering and, upon arriving at the scene, observed a restless and increasingly unruly crowd. Feiner refused multiple police requests to end his speech, and he was subsequently arrested for violating Section 722 of the New York Penal Code, which forbids incitement to breach the peace.
Feiner argued that his conviction violated his right to free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The case made its way to the United States Supreme Court, which upheld Feiner's arrest by a vote of 6-3. Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson, writing for the majority, asserted that Feiner's arrest was justified to prevent a "clear and present danger to public safety". Vinson emphasised that Feiner was convicted for his conduct, specifically incitement to riot and refusal to obey police orders, rather than the content of his speech.
However, Justices Hugo L. Black and William O. Douglas dissented, arguing that the police failed in their duty to protect Feiner's right to speak. Justice Black criticised the police for not taking action against the individual who threatened violence towards Feiner and instead censoring Feiner's speech. Justice Douglas expressed concern that the ruling could grant law enforcement excessive power over speech, allowing them to shut down unpopular speakers simply because the crowd disagrees with their views.
The Feiner v. New York case highlights the delicate balance between maintaining public order and upholding the constitutional right to free speech. It continues to be referenced in discussions about free speech and the acceptable limits of government control over expression.
Exploring Free Markets: Is It Our Constitutional Right?
You may want to see also
The definition of breach of the peace
In the case of Feiner v. New York (1951), the constitutional issue involved was the right to free speech under the First Amendment. The case addressed whether speech that incites a "breach of the peace" constitutes an exception to the First Amendment.
Breach of the peace is a legal term used in constitutional law, particularly in English-speaking countries, and in a public order sense in the United Kingdom. It refers to a form of disorderly conduct. Historically, in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the concept of breach of the peace is rooted in the Justices of the Peace Act 1361, which pertains to riotous and barratous behaviour that disturbs the peace of the King.
Over time, the understanding of breach of the peace has evolved. In modern times, breach of the peace is not considered an offence in England and Wales that can be punished by a fine or imprisonment. Instead, it enables constables or other persons to arrest someone to "prevent a further breach of the peace." This means that an individual can be arrested if it is reasonable to believe that their continued presence or conduct would lead to a breach of the peace.
In Scotland, breach of the peace is a specific criminal offence. It is prosecuted daily in the sheriff courts. The common law definition allows for its application in various scenarios. The maximum punishment, if remitted to the High Court, is life imprisonment, although such severe punishment is now rare.
To summarise, breach of the peace can be understood as conduct that causes or is likely to cause harm to a person, their property, or the community at large. It can lead to lawful arrests or interventions to prevent further disturbances.
The Constitution's Mention of Women: A Sad Reality
You may want to see also
The role of the police in protecting free speech
The case of Feiner v. New York (1951) addressed the role of police in protecting free speech. The case involved the arrest of Irving Feiner, a college student, for violating Section 722 of the New York Penal Code, which forbids the "incitement of a breach of the peace". Feiner had made an inflammatory speech, urging his listeners to "rise up in arms and fight for equal rights". The police intervened to prevent a fight and asked Feiner to stop speaking, but he refused and was subsequently arrested.
The Supreme Court upheld Feiner's arrest, stating that his First Amendment rights were not violated as the police acted to prevent a riot and suppress his message due to the crowd's reaction, rather than the content of his speech. This case highlights the delicate balance between protecting free speech and maintaining public order, with dissenting opinions arguing that the police failed to protect Feiner's right to speak and instead acted as censors.
Police officers have a challenging role in navigating the protection of free speech while maintaining public order. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, but this right is not absolute, especially for police officers. Courts have ruled that police officers' free speech interests must be balanced against the need for law enforcement agencies to maintain efficiency, morale, and discipline. Police officers' speech that interferes with their duties or undermines public confidence may not be protected.
Additionally, courts have recognized the importance of maintaining discipline and harmony within law enforcement agencies and fostering positive relationships with other agencies and the public. In Breuer v. Hart, the court upheld the termination of a police officer for anonymously disseminating racially offensive material. Similarly, in Pappas v. Giuliani, the court upheld the termination of a police officer for anonymously disseminating racially offensive material, citing the need to maintain a positive relationship with the public.
While citizens have the right to free speech when interacting with police officers, there are limitations. Courts have ruled that certain categories of speech, such as "'fighting words', threats, and speech intended to incite imminent lawless action, may not be protected. Additionally, citizens must comply with lawful orders from law enforcement officers, and failure to do so may result in arrest, even if the citizen is exercising their right to free speech.
Amendments to the US Constitution: A Historical Overview
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The role of the police in maintaining public order
The case of Feiner v. New York (1951) addressed the constitutional issue of whether speech that incites a "breach of the peace" constitutes an exception to the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. This case centred around the actions and conduct of the police in maintaining public order and preventing a breach of the peace.
Community policing is a key aspect of preventive action, where police officers work closely with residents to provide security and a sense of security. This involves efficient and competent execution of basic police functions, such as maintaining order and control of traffic, resolving conflicts, and assisting citizens in need. Effective community policing can promote a positive image of the police and maintain public confidence in their ability to maintain order and safety.
In the case of Feiner v. New York, the police's role in maintaining public order was called into question. Irving Feiner, a college student, made a speech to a crowd in Syracuse, New York, in which he encouraged listeners to "rise up in arms and fight for equal rights." He also made derogatory remarks about political figures, including President Harry Truman. The police, concerned about the potential for a breach of the peace, asked Feiner to stop speaking and eventually arrested him when he refused to comply.
The Supreme Court upheld Feiner's arrest, ruling that his speech constituted incitement to riot and that the police had acted to prevent a breach of the peace. However, this ruling was not without dissent, with some justices arguing that the police should have protected Feiner's right to speak and ensured his safety from hostile members of the crowd. This case highlights the delicate balance the police must strike between maintaining public order and protecting individuals' rights, particularly in situations involving sensitive or polarizing topics.
Overall, the police play a crucial role in maintaining public order by safeguarding democratic processes, protecting individuals' rights, and preventing and resolving conflicts. Their effectiveness in this role depends on their ability to maintain public trust and confidence through competent and unbiased policing that upholds the freedoms essential to a diverse society.
The UK's Constitutional Evolution: How Many Charters?
You may want to see also
The implications for the freedom of assembly
The case of Feiner v. New York has significant implications for the freedom of assembly. The case centred around Irving Feiner, a college student who, in 1949, delivered a speech to a racially and politically mixed crowd of 75-80 people in Syracuse, New York. Feiner stood on a box, using a loudspeaker to encourage listeners to attend a meeting at a hotel later that evening. He also made derogatory remarks about political figures, including President Harry Truman, and urged Black people to "rise up in arms and fight for equal rights".
The police observed the situation and, after receiving a complaint, asked Feiner to stop speaking three times. When he refused, they arrested him for violating Section 722 of the Penal Code of New York, which forbids the incitement of a breach of the peace. Feiner argued that his conviction violated his right to free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Supreme Court upheld Feiner's arrest, finding that his First Amendment rights were not violated because the police believed a riot might occur. They emphasised that the arrest was based on the crowd's reaction, rather than the content of Feiner's speech. This ruling set a precedent for law enforcement's ability to shut down speakers deemed unpopular by the majority, raising concerns about the protection of free assembly.
Justices Hugo Black and William Douglas dissented, arguing that the evidence did not support the claim of an imminent riot. Justice Black criticised the police for failing to protect Feiner from hostile crowd members and acting as censors of speech. The case highlighted the ongoing tension between maintaining public order and upholding constitutional rights, particularly the freedom of assembly. It underscored the importance of police protection during lawful gatherings to ensure individuals can exercise their right to assemble and speak freely.
The Feiner case continues to be referenced in discussions about free speech and assembly, influencing subsequent rulings on the topic. It serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between public order and constitutional freedoms and the crucial role of law enforcement in safeguarding these rights.
Understanding Self-Employment Income on Schedule K-1
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The constitutional issue involved in Feiner v. New York was the right to freedom of speech.
On the evening of March 8, 1949, Irving Feiner, a college student, made a speech to a racially and politically mixed crowd of 75-80 people in Syracuse, New York. He stood on a box and used a loudspeaker attached to a car. Feiner made derogatory remarks about President Harry S. Truman and other political figures, and urged Black people to "rise up in arms and fight for equal rights". The police received a complaint and two officers were sent to investigate. After observing the situation, the police asked Feiner to stop speaking, but he refused. One member of the crowd threatened to assault Feiner, but the officers did nothing to intervene. Feiner was eventually arrested for violating Section 722 of the New York Penal Code, which forbids the incitement of a breach of the peace.
The Supreme Court upheld Feiner's arrest and conviction, with a 6-3 majority. Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson wrote that Feiner's First Amendment rights were not violated because the police believed a riot might occur, and their actions were not based on the content of Feiner's speech but on the crowd's reaction. Justices Hugo L. Black, William O. Douglas, and Sherman Minton dissented, arguing that Feiner was punished for his unpopular political views and that the police failed to protect his right to speak.
Feiner v. New York set a precedent for allowing majority tyranny, where unpopular speakers can be shut down by the police simply because the crowd disagrees with them. The case also highlighted the tension between maintaining public order and upholding constitutional rights, particularly freedom of speech.
Feiner v. New York is often compared to Brandenburg v. Ohio, where similar speech was judged to be protected by the First Amendment. The case also built upon Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), which established that certain categories of speech, such as "fighting words", are exceptions to the First Amendment.
