Facts
- F. J. Chrestensen owned a former U.S. Navy submarine that he exhibited to the public for an admission fee.
- After mooring the submarine at a state pier in New York City, he printed handbills advertising the exhibit and attempted to distribute them on city streets.
- The New York City Police Commissioner warned that distribution would violate a city sanitary code provision barring street distribution of “commercial and business advertising matter,” while allowing handbills limited to “information or a public protest.”
- Chrestensen printed a double-sided handbill: one side contained revised advertising for the submarine (without stating the admission fee) and the other side contained a protest about being denied wharfage facilities at a city pier.
- Police stated the protest-only handbill would be permitted but the double-sided handbill was prohibited; Chrestensen distributed the double-sided handbill anyway and was stopped.
- Chrestensen sued in federal court, claiming the ordinance as applied violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments; the district court and the court of appeals enjoined enforcement against his handbill.
Issues
- Whether a municipal prohibition on street distribution of handbills bearing commercial advertising violates the freedoms of speech and press protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Whether a distributor can obtain constitutional protection for commercial advertising by appending a protest or other public-interest matter to the same handbill to avoid the ordinance.
Decision
- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the injunction entered against the Police Commissioner.
- The Court held that a municipal ordinance forbidding street distribution of handbills bearing commercial advertising matter is constitutional.
- The Court held that constitutional protection cannot be gained for commercial advertising by adding public-interest material to the same handbill when the addition is used to evade the ban.
- The Court treated the protest side of the double-sided handbill as a subterfuge and characterized the handbill’s relevant character as commercial.
Legal Principles
- Government may prohibit the street distribution of printed matter that is “purely commercial advertising” without violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Although streets are appropriate places for disseminating information and opinion, municipalities may regulate their use in the public interest and may draw distinctions between protected expression and commercial advertising.
- A speaker may not convert otherwise regulable commercial advertising into protected expression by appending a protest or other public-interest content when done to circumvent a valid restriction on commercial advertising.
Conclusion
The Court upheld New York City’s ban on distributing commercial advertising handbills in public streets and rejected an attempt to avoid the ban by combining commercial advertising with a protest on a single, double-sided handbill.