Facts
- Irving Feiner, a Syracuse University student, gave a public street-corner speech in Syracuse, New York, using a loudspeaker while standing on a box.
- The audience (about 75–80 people, Black and white) gathered closely, blocked the sidewalk, and spilled into the street, interfering with traffic.
- Feiner criticized public officials and made remarks the police viewed as likely to inflame racial tensions; some audience members reacted strongly both for and against him.
- At least one person threatened violence if police did not intervene.
- Police officers observed for a period without stopping the speech, then asked Feiner three times to stop and get down to prevent a fight; Feiner refused and continued speaking after more than 30 minutes.
- Feiner was arrested and charged under New York Penal Law § 722 for disorderly conduct/inciting a breach of the peace.
- He was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in jail; state appellate courts affirmed.
Issues
- Whether convicting Feiner for disorderly conduct/inciting a breach of the peace, based on the crowd’s reaction to his speech, violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Whether police may stop and arrest a speaker when the speech, in context, creates a clear and present danger of imminent riot or disorder.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, 6–3.
- The Court held that the conviction did not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments under the circumstances.
- The majority reasoned that Feiner was punished not for the content of his views, but for the actual and imminent threat of disorder his conduct and the crowd situation produced.
- The Court accepted the officers’ judgment that the situation was becoming dangerous and that warnings were given before arrest.
- Dissenting Justices argued the record did not show imminent riot and warned the ruling allowed suppression of speech because of a hostile audience (a “heckler’s veto”).
Legal Principles
- The First Amendment does not bar content-neutral enforcement aimed at preventing an imminent breach of the peace when circumstances show a clear and present danger of riot or disorder.
- Police may intervene when a speaker’s conduct, in context, moves beyond persuasion and creates a realistic prospect of immediate violence or public disorder.
- Government may not use police power to suppress unpopular views as such, but may act to maintain public order where the threat of disorder is imminent and concrete.
Conclusion
The Court upheld Feiner’s disorderly-conduct conviction, ruling that police may stop and arrest a speaker when the on-scene circumstances show a clear and present danger of imminent disorder, and the action is directed at preventing a breach of the peace rather than suppressing viewpoint.