LIBERTY OF SPEECH. The right to speak facts and express opinions. Whart. Diet.
The liberty of speech which both the fed eral and state constitutions protect is (1) Liberty of speech of legislators in public as semblies, and while engaged in discussing public matters, or in writing reports, or in the exercise of the functions of their office. This is an official privilege: 4 Mass. 1. (2) Liberty of speech of counsel in judicial pro ceedings, and while confining himself to mat ters that are strictly pertinent to the issue. This is also an official privilege; Hoar v. Wood, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 194.
In the discharge of his professional duty, counsel may use strong epithets, however derogatory to other persons they may be, if pertinent to the cause, and stated in bis instructions, whether the thing were true or false. But if he were maliciously to travel out of his case for the' purpose of slandering another, he would be liable to an action, and amenable to a just, and often more effica cious, punishment, inflicted by public opin ion ; 3 Chitty, Pr. 887.
No action will lie against a witness at the suit of a party aggrieved by his false testi mony, even though malice be charged; Marsh v. Ellsworth, 50 N. Y. 309; Terry v. Fellows, 21 La. Ann. 375; Smith v. Howard, 28 Ia. 51.
An act forbidding the use of profane lan guage is not an undue interference with free speech; State v. Warren, 113 N. C. 683, 18 S. E. 498; Harman v. U. S., 50 Fed. 921; U. S. v. Bennett, 16 Blatch. 338, Fed. Cas. No. 14,571; or an ordinance prohibiting a public address upon any of the public grounds of a city ; Com. v. Davis, 162 Mass. 510, 39 N. E. 113, 26 L. R. A. 712, 44 Am. St. Rep. 889; but an act which makes it un lawful for certain specified officers to partici pate in politics by making political speeches or participate in political meetings is uncon stitutional ; Louthan v. Com., 79 Va. 196, 52 Am. Rep. 626.
Maliciously enticing employes of ,a receiv er to leave his employ in pursuance of a combination to prevent the operation of the road is not protected by the constitutional guaranty of free speech ; Thomas v. Ry. Co., 62 Fed. 803. Congress has no power to pun ish individuals for disturbing the assemblies of peaceful citizens. That is a police power belonging to the state alone ; U. S. v. Cruik shank, 92 U. S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588.
A statute requiring a report of a civic league upon a candidate for public office to state in full all the facts on which it is founded, together with the names and ad dresses of the persons furnishing it, violates a constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech; Ex parte Harrison, 212 Mo. 88, 110
S. W. 709, 126 Am. St. Rep. 557, 15 Ann. Cas. 1. An act forbidding improper mail matter does not abridge freedom of speech ; Warren v. U. S., 183 Fed. 718, 106 C. C. A. 156, .33 L. R. A. .(N. S.) 800. In Wallace v. Ry. Co., 94 Ga. 732, 22 S. E. 579, an act re quiring certain corporations to give to their discharged employes the causes of their dis charge was held unconstitutional on the ground that, as liberty of speech and of writing is secured by the constitution, inci dent thereto is the correlative liberty of silence, and that statements or communica tions, oral or written, required for private information cannot be coerced by legislative mandate at the will of one of the parties against the will of the other.
The constitutional guaranty of free speech does not authorize members of a labor union by threats, intimidation, etc., to induce pro spective patrons of a business to refrain from Patronizing the same ; Jordahl v. Heyde, 1 Cal. App. 696, 82 Pac. 1079 ; a city ordinance, declaring it unlawful to hold public meet ings in the street without the consent of the municipal authorities, is valid; Fitts v. City of Atlanta, 121 Ga. 567, 49 S. E. 793, 67 L. R. A. 803, 104 Am. St. Rep. 167 ; a municipal regulation, which provides that no members of the police department shall be allowed to solicit money or any aid on any pretence for any political purpose whatever, is not unconstitutional, as invading their rights to express their political opinions ; McAuliffe v. Mayor, etc., of New. Bedford, 155 Mass. 216, 29 $. E. 517; an act prohibit ing creditors from threatening to injure the credit or reputation of a debtor, by publish ing his name as a bad unless the debt is paid, is not invalid as limiting the free dom of speech; State v. McCabe, 135 Mo. 450, 37 S. W. 123, 34 L. R. A. 127, 58 Am. St. Rep. 589 ; that defendant was restrained, in a suit for the partial alienation of a wife's affections, from conversing with or writing her in any way, is not inconsistent with freedom of speech or of press ; Ex parte Warfield, 40 Tex. Cr. R. 413, 50 S. W. 933, 76 Am. St. Rep. 724.
See 32 L. R. A. 829, n. ; Cooley, Const. Lim.; Ord. Const. Leg. ; LABOR UNION ; MAL ICE; SLANDER; LIBEL; LIBERTY OF THE PRESS.