Significance: This ruling made clear that the rights of freedom of speech and of assembly cannot be limited for any law-abiding individuals or groups, no matter what their political agenda. This decision allowed fringe parties, such as the Communist Party, to assemble peacefully without fear of being jailed for the political content of their meetings.
Background: An Oregon law prohibited any organization that could be viewed as criminal. In 1934 Dirk DeJonge was convicted under this law for helping to conduct a meeting in Portland to protest police brutality against striking dock workers. At this meeting there was no unlawful activity or support for criminal behavior. However, some of the literature that DeJonge handed out was put together by the Communist Party and suggested that the party promoted organizing for criminal purposes. DeJonge appealed the case to the Oregon Supreme Court, which upheld his conviction. He then appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Decision: This case was argued on December 9, 1936, and decided on January 4, 1937, by a vote of 8 to 0. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes spoke for the unanimous Court. Justice Harlan Stone did not participate. The Court reversed the conviction, citing the rights to free speech and peaceful assembly guaranteed by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Excerpt from the Opinion of the Court: “The holding of meetings for peaceable political action cannot be proscribed [prohibited]. Those who assist in the conduct of such meetings cannot be branded as criminals on that score. The question, if the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly are to be preserved, is not as to the auspices [sponsorship] under which the meeting is held but as to its purpose; not as to the relations of the speakers, but whether their utterances transcend [statements go beyond] the bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects. If the persons assembling have committed crimes elsewhere, if they have formed or are engaged in a conspiracy against the public peace and order, they may be prosecuted for their conspiracy or other violation of valid laws. But it is a different matter when the State, instead of prosecuting them for such offenses, seizes upon mere participation in a peaceable assembly and a lawful public discussion as the basis for a criminal charge.”
