## Facts

- A law firm represented Helen Willing, an indigent client, in a workers’ compensation matter that resulted in an award of permanent partial disability benefits.
- From the settlement distribution, the firm deducted $150 as case costs and paid that amount to a treating psychiatrist who testified for Willing.
- Willing believed the lawyers wrongfully kept part of the $150 and accused them of stealing from her and “selling her out” to an insurance company.
- On two days in 1975, Willing conducted loud public demonstrations in a busy downtown pedestrian area near courts and government buildings.
- During the demonstrations, Willing displayed a large sign accusing the firm of stealing money and betraying her, used noise-making devices to attract attention, and continued for several hours each day.
- The lawyers filed an equity action seeking to stop the demonstrations and the allegedly defamatory statements.

## Issues

1. Whether an injunction prohibiting a former client from publicly making false and defamatory accusations against her attorneys violates Article I, § 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution as an impermissible prior restraint.
2. Whether a defendant’s indigency and the low likelihood of collecting damages can justify equitable relief restraining future defamatory speech.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reversed the decrees granting injunctive relief.
- The Court held the injunction was an unconstitutional prior restraint under Article I, § 7, even though the statements were found false and defamatory.
- The Court rejected the view that equity may silence future speech because damages remedies might be ineffective against an indigent defendant.

## Legal Principles

- Article I, § 7 protects free expression by barring prior restraints; speakers are generally “responsible for the abuse” of that liberty through post-publication remedies rather than pre-publication suppression.
- An injunction forbidding future speech on a subject operates as a prior restraint and is presumptively incompatible with Article I, § 7.
- The availability of legal remedies for defamation (such as damages) generally precludes equitable relief restraining future defamatory statements, even if recovery is uncertain.
- Free speech protections cannot be conditioned on economic status; a speaker’s indigency does not create an exception permitting prior restraint where it would not be permitted against a solvent speaker.

## Conclusion

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that prospective injunctive relief barring a defendant from repeating defamatory accusations against private attorneys constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint under Article I, § 7, and that the defendant’s indigency did not justify substituting equitable censorship for ordinary post-publication defamation remedies.


Willing v. Mazzocone, 482 Pa. 377, 393 A.2d 1155 (Pa. 1978)