local police. I will have no part or parcel in this holding which I view as a long step toward totalitarian authority.

I reject the implication of the Court's opinion that the police had no obligation to protect petitioner’s constitutional   right to talk. The police of course have power to prevent breaches of the peace. But if, in the name of preserving order, they ever can interfere with a lawful public speaker, they must first make all reasonable efforts to protect him. Here the policemen did  not even pretend to protect petitioner.

 

Justices Douglas and Minton also dissented.

 

Epilogue

 

While his case was pending, Feiner went back to New York and found a job in the...

Please subscribe to keep reading.