7/21/2019 cases 4 baruch

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cases-4-baruch 1/2

Kunz v. NY

A Baptist minister, Carl J. Kunz, was denied a permit to preach on the streets of New York City

 y the city police commissioner. A city ordinance prohiited reli!ious services on pulic streetswithout a permit from the city !overnment. "he ordinance did not spell out the reasons for

denyin! someone a permit. "he #everend $r. Kunz was denied a permit ecause he had a

reputation for usin! oscene words in his speeches to denounce Catholics and Jews. Kunz defiedthe city ordinance and preached on a street corner without a permit. %e was arrested and

convicted for violatin! the city ordinance.

"he &ssue

'ere Carl Kunz(s ri!hts to freedom of speech and free e)ercise of reli!ion, !uaranteed y the *st

and *+th Amendments, violated y the New York City ordinance that was used to deny him a permit to preach in pulic

-pinion of the Court

"he upreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the New York City ordinance that arred

worship services on pulic streets without a permit. Chief Justice /red 0inson said thatenforcement of the ordinance was an unconstitutional 1prior restraint2 3advance censorship4 on

an individual(s ri!hts to free speech and free e)ercise of reli!ion. 0inson ruled that New York

could not le!ally !ive an administrative official control over the ri!ht to speak on reli!ioussu5ects without 1appropriate standards to !uide his action.2

6issent

Justice #oert Jackson defended the restrictions on Kunz(s freedom of e)pression ecause the

reverend had used 1fi!htin! words.2 Justice Jackson ased his dissentin! opinion on the1fi!htin! words2 doctrine used y the Court in Chaplinski v. New %ampshire 3*7+84, which heldthat 1the lewd and oscene, the profane, the lielous2 and insultin! or 1fi!htin! words2 did not

have any 1social value2 in the search for truth, pulic order, and safety. "herefore, the Court had

ruled that 1fi!htin! words2 are outside the protection of *st Amendment !uarantees of freespeech.

i!nificance

"he Kunz case estalished that any roadly worded law restrictin! freedom of e)pression in

 pulic places is an unconstitutional e)ercise of prior restraint. "he 1fi!htin! words2 doctrine,

employed in the dissentin! opinion, has suse9uently declined as an ar!ument for restrictions onspeech. "he only prevailin! 5ustification for restrictin! speech is to prevent direct, immediate,

and sustantial harm to a vital social interest, such as national security, pulic order, and the

safety of individuals.

7/21/2019 cases 4 baruch

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/cases-4-baruch 2/2

:ocurto v. ;iuliani

Back!round< /ormer police and fire department employees rou!ht = *7>? action a!ainstmunicipality and its officials alle!in! that their termination for participatin! in parade float was

in retaliation for e)ercise of their /irst Amendment ri!ht of free speech. "he @nited tates

6istrict Court for the outhern 6istrict of New York, 7 /.upp.8d **, denied parties( crossmotions for summary 5ud!ment. 6efendants rou!ht interlocutory appeal. "he Court of

Appeals, 8+ /.?d *+, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and dismissed portion of appeal that

 pertained to /irst Amendment claim. -n remand, the 6istrict Court, John D. prizzo, J., 87/.upp.8d ?>, !ranted 5ud!ment for employees. 6efendants appealed.

%oldin!s< "he Court of Appeals, Calaresi, Circuit Jud!e, held that<

3*4 collateral estoppel did not attachE

384 content of employees( racist e)pression did not rin! aout dismissal in asence of concernaout disruptive effects on relationship etween police and fire departments and minority

communitiesE

3?4 municipal officials were motivated y reasonale concern for potentially disruptive effects onrelationship etween police and fire departments and minority communitiesE and

3+4 employer(s interest in maintainin! relationship of trust etween AfricanAmerican

community and police and fire departments outwei!hed e)pressive interests of employees while

offduty.