Frisby v. Schultz 1988

• Author: Daniel Brannen, Richard Hanes, Elizabeth Shaw
• Pages: 237-241

Contenidos

• Picket fencing.
• Privacy prevails.
• Sorry, Charlie.
• Suggestions for further reading.

Page 237

Appellants: Russell Frisby, Supervisor of the Town of Brookfield, Wisconsin, et al.

Appellees: Sandra C. Schultz and Robert C. Braun

Appellants' Claim: That a law banning picketing in front of residential homes did not violate the freedom of speech.

Chief Lawyer for Appellants: Harold H. Furhman

Chief Lawyer for Appellees: Steven Frederick McDowell

Justices for the Court: Harry A. Blackmun, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Byron R. White

Justices Dissenting: William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, John Paul Stevens

Date of Decision: June 27, 1988

Decision: The law banning picketing was constitutional under the First Amendment.

Significance: Freedom of speech does not give picketers the right to harass people in their homes.

Abortion is ending a woman's pregnancy before the fetus or child is born. (Abortion supporters call the unborn a fetus. Abortion protestors call the unborn a child.) In the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court decided that women have a constitutional right to have abortions. Since then, abortion supporters have fought hard to

Page 238

protect this right. Abortion protestors, who believe abortion is murder, have fought equally hard for the rights of the unborn.

Picket fencing

Brookfield, Wisconsin, is a residential suburb of Milwaukee and was home to an abortion doctor. Abortion protestors, including Sandra C. Schultz and Robert C. Braun, decided to picket on a public street outside the doctor's home to protest against abortion. Schultz and Brown picketed with many other protestors six times during April and May 1985. The groups ranged from eleven to over forty people who picketed for between one and two hours.

WHEN IS PICKETING CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED?

Picketing is normally a peaceful carrying of signs and banners clearly advertising a grievance or the purpose of a demonstration. It is a recognized means of communication.

Beginning in the 1930s, some states sought to hinder the development of labor unions by passing laws prohibiting picketing. The states argued picketing is conduct, not speech, and therefore not protected by the First Amendment. In 1941 the Supreme Court concluded that peaceful picketing is a constitutionally protected means of transmitting ideas.

The guarantee of free expression has often been weighed against...