1. Anti-picketing ordinance, virtually identical with one invalidated as violative of equal protection in Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, ante, p. 92 , is
likewise invalid. P. 107 . 2. Anti-noise ordinance prohibiting a person while on grounds adjacent to a building in which a school is in session from willfully making
a noise or diversion that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of the school session is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. The ordinance is
not vague, since, with fair warning, it prohibits only actual or imminent, and willful, interference with normal school activity, and is not a broad invitation to
discriminatory enforcement. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 ; Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611, distinguished. The ordinance is not overbroad as unduly
interfering with First Amendment rights since expressive activity is prohibited only if it "materially disrupts classwork." Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393
U.S. 503 , 513 . Pp. 107-121 . 46 Ill.2d 492, 263 N.E.2d 866, affirmed in part and reversed in part. Opinions MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the
Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BRENNAN, STEWART, WHITE, POWELL, and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed a statement joining
in the judgment and in Part I of the Court's opinion and concurring in the result as to Part IL of the opinion, post, p. 121 . DOUGLAS, J., filed an opinion
dissenting in part and joining in Part I of the Court's opinion, post, p. 121 . [p*105]
Back to First Amendment Surpreme Court Cases List