19 N.Y.2d 605 (1967)

Public entities cannot deny access to public facilities to organizations based solely on the controversial views of their invited speakers, absent a showing that the expression of those views would immediately and irreparably harm the public.

Summary

East Meadow Community Concerts Association sought to use a school auditorium for a concert featuring Pete Seeger. The Board of Education denied the request due to Seeger’s controversial views. The Court of Appeals held that this denial was an unconstitutional restriction of free speech because there was no evidence that Seeger’s views would immediately and irreparably harm the public. The court emphasized the importance of protecting the expression of controversial and unpopular views, reinforcing that denial of access based solely on viewpoint is unconstitutional.

Facts

East Meadow Community Concerts Association, an organization entitled to use school facilities under the New York Education Law, scheduled a concert featuring Pete Seeger.

The Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 3 denied the Association’s request to use the school auditorium.

The denial was based solely on the controversial views previously expressed by Pete Seeger.

Procedural History

The case initially went to the trial court, which ruled in favor of the Concerts Association.

The Board of Education appealed, and the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s decision.

The Board of Education then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

The Court of Appeals had previously considered a related aspect of the case (18 N.Y.2d 129) and affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision.

Issue(s)

Whether the Board of Education’s denial of access to school facilities based solely on the controversial views of a scheduled performer constitutes an unlawful restriction of free speech under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the New York Constitution.

Holding

Yes, because the denial was based solely on Seeger’s controversial views, and there was no evidence presented that his expression of those views would immediately and irreparably create injury to the public.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals relied on the principle that the expression of controversial and unpopular views is protected by both the Federal and State Constitutions. It cited several Supreme Court cases, including Bond v. Floyd, Kunz v. New York, and Hague v. C. I. O., to support this principle.

The court emphasized that restrictions on free speech are only permissible when there is a clear and present danger of immediate and irreparable harm to the public weal, referencing Matter of Rockwell v. Morris. Since no such showing was made, the Board of Education’s denial constituted an unlawful restriction of free speech.

The court quoted its earlier decision in the case: “The expression of controversial and unpopular views… is precisely what is protected by both the Federal and State Constitutions.”

The court concluded that because the denial was solely based on Seeger’s views without evidence of imminent harm, it was an unconstitutional restriction. This decision reinforces the importance of viewpoint neutrality in the context of access to public facilities.