[105] Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 308 (1940).
[106] Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369 (1931).
[107] Fox v. Washington, 236 U.S. 273, 277 (1915).
[108] Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).
[109] Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949).
[110] Ibid. 4.
[111] Ibid. 33. Dissenting opinions were written by Chief Justice Vinson, Justice Frankfurter (with whom Justices Jackson and Burton concurred) and Justice Jackson, (with whom Justice Burton agreed).
[112] 340 U.S. 315 (1951).
[113] Ibid. 319-320. Anent this finding, Justice Douglas, in his dissent, declared that: "Public assemblies and public speech occupy an important role in American life. One high function of the police is to protect these lawful gatherings so that the speakers may exercise their constitutional rights. When unpopular causes are sponsored from the public platform, there will commonly be mutterings and unrest and heckling from the crowd. * * * But those extravagances * * *, do not justify penalizing the speaker by depriving him of the platform or by punishing him for his conduct. * * * If * * * the police throw their weight on the side of those who would break up the meetings, the police become the new censors of speech. Police censorship has all the vices of the censorship from city halls which we have repeatedy [sic] struck down."—Ibid. 330-331.
[114] 333 U.S. 507 (1948).