- Regulatory Ordinances
News Printing Co. v. Borough of Totowa, 211 N.J.
Super. 121 (Law Div. 1986), concluded that defendant
borough’s requirement that plaintiff newspaper obtain
permits before placing its news racks on public streets
constituted a prior restraint. In determining whether an
injunction should issue with respect to this prior restraint
on the newspaper’s ability to circulate its papers under
the First Amendment, the regulating governmental body
must show that it has a substantial interest to protect.
Further, the ordinance must be related to that interest
and must allow for sufficient alternative means of
communication.
C. Picketing, Demonstrations, And The Distribution Of
Information
Many cases in this area arise in an action for violation
of a state statute or municipal ordinance concerning
trespass. See N.J.S.A. 2C:18-3.
- Parades and Assemblies
In Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S.
123 (1992), an organization filed suit challenging
constitutionality of county’s assembly and parade
ordinance. The Supreme Court held that: (1) county
ordinance permitting government administrator to vary
the fee for assembling or parading to reflect the estimated
cost of maintaining public order was facially
unconstitutional, due to absence of narrowly drawn,
reasonable, and definite standards to guide fee
determination; (2) ordinance unconstitutionally re-
quired administrator to examine content of message and
to estimate public response and cost of police services ;
and (3) $1,000 cap on parade permit fee did not render
otherwise invalid ordinance constitutional.
In an action concerning the constitutionality of an
ordinance governing parades, Hurwitz v. Boyle, 117 N.J.
Super. 196 (App. Div. 1971), the Appellate Division
observed that the right of free speech does not mean that
everyone with opinions or beliefs to express may address
a group at any public place and at any time. The Court
additionally observed that while the First Amendment
does not afford the same kind of freedom to those
communicating ideas by conduct such as patrolling,
marching and picketing on streets and highways as
afforded to those communicating by “pure speech,” such
conduct may nonetheless constitute methods of
expression entitled to First Amendment protection.
Faculty Ad Hoc October 15th Vietnam Moratorium
Committee v. Borough of Glassboro, 111 N.J. Super. 258
(Ch. Div. 1970), held that the provision of a municipal
parade permit ordinance that one of nine criteria to be
observed by the chief of police in deciding whether a
permit should issue is whether the conduct of the parade
is not reasonablely likely to cause injuries to persons or
property, provoke disorderly conduct, or create a
disturbance, is unconstitutional on its face. It affords
public officials the discretion to reject a parade permit if
they feel others might disagree with the views expressed
and create a disturbance. The constitutional right of free
speech and assembly cannot be abridged simply because
others might take offense at what is being said or
advocated and create a disturbance.- Leafletting and Other Forms of Information
Distribution
In Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, Inc.,
482 U.S. 569 (1987), a minister of religious group who
was prevented from distributing free religious literature
at Los Angeles International Airport brought suit
challenging a resolution of the Board of Airport
Commissioners banning all “First Amendment activi-
ties” within the “Central Terminal Area” at the airport.
Held: the resolution was facially unconstitutional under
the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, regardless of
whether airport was considered a nonpublic forum,
because no conceivable governmental interest could
justify such an absolute prohibition of speech.In Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast
Building and Construction Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568
(1988), a union’s peaceful distribution of handbills at
shopping mall’s entrances, urging customers not to shop
at any of mall’s stores until mall’s owner promised that all
mall construction would be done by contractors paying
fair wages, did not violate provision of National Labor
Relations Act making it an unfair labor practice to
“threaten, coerce, or restrain any person” to cease doing
business with another.In Marsh v. State of Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946),
appellant was arrested for distributing Jehovah’s Witness
literature on the sidewalk in Chickasaw, Alabama, a town
owned by the Gulf Shipping Corporation. The Court
held that the mere fact that a single company possessed
legal title to the town was not dispositive of the issue:
“Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion.
The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his
property for use by the public in general the more do his