A city cannot pass an ordinance declaring a certain named newspaper a public nui sance and forbidding its sale; Ex parte Neill, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 275, 22 S. W. 923, 40 • Am. St. Rep. 776; nor can the advertisement of a dramatic production be prevented where the play is based upon the facts of a pending trial, as disclosed at a preliminary hearing and the coroner's inquest; Dailey v. Superior Court, 112 Cal. 94, 44 Pac. 458, 32 L. R. A. 273, 53 Am. St. Rep. 160; and the constitu tional guaranty of liberty of the press will not protect one who breaks a contract with a purchaser not to publish or be connected with another paper in the same locality; Cowan v. Falrbrotber, 118 N. C. 406, 24 S. E. 212, 32 L. R. A. 829, 54 Am. St. Rep. 733.
The constitutional freedom of speech or liberty of the press, -when applied to news papers, consists of the right to publish freely whatever one pleases, and to be protected against any responsibility therefor, except so far as the publication is blasphemous, ob scene, seditious or 'scandalous. It is the right to speak the truth, but does not include the right to scandalize courts, or to libel private citizens or public officers; State v.
Shepherd, 177 Mo. 205, 76 S. W. 79, 99 Am, St. Rep. 624.
An ordinance making it unlawful to dis tribute handbills, dodgers or circulars in the public streets or sidewalks does not violate the freedom of speech or the press; In re Anderson, 69 Neb. 686, 96 N. W. 149, 5 Ann. Cas. 421; while any citizen has a right to comment on the proceedings of a court, to discuss its correctness or the fitness or un fitness of the judges for their positions, he has no right, by libelous publications, to de grade the tribunal, for that is an abuse of the liberty of the press ; Burdett v. Com., 103 Va. 838, 48 S. E. 878, 68 L. R. A. 251,
106 Am. St. Rep. 916. The publication of one's picture, without his consent, as a part of an advertisement, is in no sense an exer cise of the liberty of speech or of the press; Paved& v. Ins. Co., 122 Ga. 190, 50 S. E. 68, 69 L. R. A. 101, 106 Am. St. Rep. 104, 2 Ann. Cas. 561.
The phrase "liberty of the press" means that any citizen may write or publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible only for the abuse of that right; Williams Printing Co. v. Saunders, 113 Va. 156, 73 S. E. 472, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 693: The publication and circulation of a news paper cannot be enjoined merely because it contains the "unfair" list of a labor union; but when it appeared that there was a con spiracy against the complainant in a pend ing.cause and the newspaper was publishing the complainant's business and product in the "unfair" or "we-don't-patronize" list in furtherance of a boycott, it was enjoined, the court saying that, as soon as the conspiracy ended, the newspaper Would have the right to comment upon the relation of the com plainant with its employds; American Fed eration of Labor v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 33 App. D. C. 83, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 748. ' The liberty of the press is 310 greater or no less than the liberty of every subject of the queen. Lord Russell, C. J., hi L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 40.
The requirements of the act of 1912 that certain information be given to the post master general and that all paid for news paper matter be marked advertisement, un der penalty of exclusion, does not abridge the freedom of the press; Lewis Pub. Co. v. Morgan, 229 U. S. 288, 33 Sup. Ct. 867, 57 L. Ed. 1190.
As to whether an injunction may be issued to restrain the publication of an alleged libel, see LIBEL.
See, generally, NEWSPAPER; LETTER; IN JUNCTION.