Bridges president of the union against whom the trial judge had ruled, published a copy of a telegram he had sent to the Secretary of Labor describing the judge's decision "outrageous" and suggested that if the decision was enforced, his union would call a strike and tie up the port of LA and involve the entire Pacific Coast.
He was found guilty of contempt of court.
"Clear and Present Danger"- that the substantive evil must be extremely serious and and the degree of imminence extremely high before utterances can be punished.
The substantive evil here is to be double:
1. Disrespect for the judiciary
2. Disorderly and unfair administration of justice
Is it possible to say that the act in question could have threatened to change the nature of legal trials?
Should the judiciary be shielded from public criticism?
E-pasta adrese, uz kuru nosūtīt darba saiti:
Saite uz darbu: