No, the state was right to stop the protest. Freedom of speech does not give you a free pass to force someone to break the law. The Court said the protest wasn't just about sharing an opinion; it was a key weapon in the union's illegal plan to control the ice business. Because the entire goal of the protest was to achieve something illegal, the state had the power to shut it down.

Yes, the state can stop the union's protest because it was part of activities that broke state trade laws. We think this is okay because keeping trade fair and free for everyone is more important than the union's right to protest in this situation. The union wasn't just speaking or holding signs - they were trying to force Empire to do something illegal. It's not against free speech to stop people from doing illegal things, even if they're using words or signs as part of their illegal actions. Missouri has the right to make and enforce laws that keep trade fair, and this is more important than letting groups use protests to make others break the law.

No, the injunction does not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The constitutional guarantee of free speech does not immunize picketing from state regulation where the picketing is an integral part of a course of conduct that violates a valid state law. The court reasoned that the union's picketing was not merely the dissemination of information about a labor dispute; it was a crucial part of a concerted action to compel Empire to violate Missouri's anti-trade-restraint statute. The court held that the First Amendment does not protect speech or writing used as a direct means to achieve a substantive evil, such as a criminal conspiracy in restraint of trade, which a state has the power to prohibit. To hold otherwise would make it practically impossible to enforce antitrust laws, as most agreements in restraint of trade are carried out through speech or writing. The state's interest in maintaining a free and open market is paramount and justifies restraining speech that is inseparable from unlawful conduct.

Yes, the state has the constitutional authority to apply its anti-trade-restraint law to labor union activities, including peaceful picketing, when such activities are part of conduct that violates state law. This is because the state's interest in preventing restraints of trade and maintaining free competition outweighs the union's claim of free speech in this context. The union's actions, aimed at coercing Empire to comply with unlawful demands, constituted a violation of valid state law, and thus the injunction was appropriately granted. We reject the contention that the constitutional freedom for speech and press extends its immunity to speech or writing used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute. The placards used by the picketers were an essential and inseparable part of a grave offense against an important public law and cannot immunize that unlawful conduct from state control. Missouri's policy against restraints of trade is of long standing and is clearly drawn in an attempt to afford all persons an equal opportunity to buy goods. The state's power to govern in this field is paramount, and nothing in the constitutional guaranties of speech or press compels a state to apply or not to apply its anti-trade-restraint law to groups of workers, businessmen, or others.

Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot