40.

Cantwell vs Connecticut

Note: For easy understanding unnie, may dalawang issue about sa

constitutionality ng state law and about kung naka commit ba ng breach of peace
si petitioner.

Brief Fact Summary. A Jehovah’s Witnesses was convicted on a charge of breach of

the peace for playing a phonograph record sharply critical of the Catholic religion to
persons he encountered on the street.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. A State may proscribe speech if it amounts to a breach of

the peace, which encompasses not only violent acts, but also acts and words likely to
produce violence in others.

Facts. This case involved a challenge to a state statute prohibiting the solicitation of
money for religious, charitable, or philanthropic causes without approval of the secretary
of public welfare. Jesse Cantwell (Cantwell), a Jehovah’s Witnesses, was convicted on
the charge of breach of the peace for playing a phonograph record sharply critical of the
Catholic religion to persons he encountered on the street. His intent was to proselytize
his listeners. Prior to his arrest, there was no evidence that Cantwell’s deportment was
noisy or offensive. Moreover, although the message on the record was offensive, it was
only played to persons who voluntarily agreed to listen.

Issue. Did the arrest and conviction of Cantwell for violating the common law offense of
breach of the peace violate his constitutional rights of free speech under the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution (Constitution)?

Held. Yes. The lower court is reversed.

The Supreme Court struck down the law on the grounds that it constituted a prior
restraint on the free exercise of religion. The state contended that the statute was not a
prior restraint, but merely a safeguard against frauds committed in the name of religion.
Under the law, the secretary of the public welfare of the State was charged with
determining whether or not the proposed solicitation was for a valid religious purpose; if
he decided the cause was not truly religious, he refused to issue a permit, thus making
the proposed solicitation illegal.

“The State is likewise free to regulate the time and manner of solicitation
generally, in the interest of public safety, peace, comfort or convenience. But to
condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems
upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by
state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon
the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution.”
The Court noted that a general regulation of solicitation, which contains no religious test
and does not unreasonably obstruct the collection of funds, does not violate the
constitution even if the collection is done for a religious purpose. However, because this
statute specifically targeted solicitation for religious purposes and involved a prior
restraint on a religious group’s ability to collect funds for its survival, the Court held that
the statute violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Moreover, Justice Owen Roberts (J. Roberts) stated that while it is obvious that the
principles of freedom of speech and religion do not sanction incitement to riot or
violence, it is equally obvious that a State may not unduly suppress free communication
of views under the guise of maintaining desirable conditions. With these considerations
in mind, we note that there was no evidence of assaultive behavior or threatening of
bodily harm, no truculent bearing, no profane, abusive, indecent remarks directed to the
person of the hearer. Thus, it cannot be said that Cantwell’s actions resulted in a breach
of the peace or an incitement to a breach thereof.

Discussion. By ruling that the facts of this case, speaking to an audience hostile to ones
message, does not amount to a breach of the peace, the Supreme Court of the United
States (Supreme Court) gives insight into the degree of public disorder it requires to
permit a government to regulate free expression on those grounds.