Feb 1, 2019 3 min read

This week (Feb. 7) in 1946, Arthur Terminiello, a Catholic priest from Chicago, gave an inflammatory speech to the Christian Veterans of America, condemning communism and making racially charged statements. His speech delighted the 800 Christians in attendance, but enraged the nearly 1,600 others attending. When it appeared that his detractors might engage in violent protest, members of the Chicago police, who had been assigned to keep an eye on things, asked Terminiello to step down, but he refused and continued speaking. Subsequently, the angry attendees began to throw chairs and punches, and attempted to physically harm Terminiello, who was escorted out of the building.

After which the police arrested Terminiello and he was fined $100 for inciting a riot and violating Chicago’s “breach of the peace” ordinance, while not one of the protestors who had actually caused physical harm and property damage was arrested. Terminiello appealed his convection to the Illinois Appellate Court and the Illinois Supreme Court, both of which ruled against him, so he appealed to the Supreme Court.

In 1949, in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court overturned Terminiello’s conviction and found Chicago’s breach of peace ordinance unconstitutional on First Amendment free-speech grounds. Justice William O. Douglas, writing for the majority, said that encouraging argument was one purpose of free speech, even when it triggers anger. “Accordingly, a function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute,” Douglas wrote. “It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.”

Therefore, the court said, although free speech was not limitless, and purposeful “fighting words” were not protected, within reasonable limits the police had an obligation to protect Terminiello’s right to speak. In effect, the court said, the police were not allowed to uphold “the heckler’s veto,” as it had become known. The police could not allow audiences to silence speakers.

Terminiello v. City of Chicago was a landmark case, the more so given the frequent attempts to stifle free speech that we see today, on college campuses, at political rallies, at town hall meetings, during street demonstrations, and so on, many of which have resulted in angry crowds turning violent.

The one exception is when speakers are deliberately provocative and resort to “fighting words” – for that they can be held legally accountable – but that aside, the right to free speech in America is sacrosanct, and if we err it should be on the side of free speech protections. “For the alternative,” Douglas wrote, “would lead to standardization (often leading to suppression) of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.”

Bruce G. Kauffmann’s email address is bruce@historylessons.net.