Eisenstaedt V. Baird 2.2: Case Study
BUAD 3070-901
October 28, 2012
I. Eisenstaedt v. Baird II. CITATION: 405 U.S. 438 (1972)
III. FACTS:
On April 6th, 1967 at Boston University in William Baird violated Massachusetts law at the time when he handed a condom and a package of Emko vaginal foam to an unmarried 19 year old young woman. At the time of the incident, under Massachusetts state law “Crimes against Chastity” makes it a felony for anyone to give away a drug, medicine, instrument, or article for the prevention of conception except in the case of (1) a registered physician administering or prescribing it for a married person or (2) an active registered pharmacist furnishing it to a married person presenting a registered physician's prescription. The Massachusetts Supreme Court set aside the conviction for exhibiting contraceptives on the grounds that it violated Baird First Amendment rights, but sustained the conviction for giving away the foam. The law permitted …show more content…
The right to petition often involves the right to walk. The right of assembly may mean pushing or jostling. Picketing involves physical activity, as well as a display of a sign. A sit-in can be a quiet, dignified protest that has First Amendment protection even though no speech is involved, as we held in Brown v. Louisiana, supra. Putting contraceptives on display is certainly an aid to speech and discussion. Handing an article under discussion to a member of the audience is a technique known to all teachers, and is commonly used. A handout may be on such a scale as to smack of a vendor's marketing scheme. But passing one article to an audience is merely a projection of the visual aid, and should be a permissible adjunct of free speech. Baird was not making a prescription, nor purporting to give medical advice. Handing out the article was not even a suggestion that the lady use it. At most, it suggested that she become familiar with the product
October 28, 2012
I. Eisenstaedt v. Baird II. CITATION: 405 U.S. 438 (1972)
III. FACTS:
On April 6th, 1967 at Boston University in William Baird violated Massachusetts law at the time when he handed a condom and a package of Emko vaginal foam to an unmarried 19 year old young woman. At the time of the incident, under Massachusetts state law “Crimes against Chastity” makes it a felony for anyone to give away a drug, medicine, instrument, or article for the prevention of conception except in the case of (1) a registered physician administering or prescribing it for a married person or (2) an active registered pharmacist furnishing it to a married person presenting a registered physician's prescription. The Massachusetts Supreme Court set aside the conviction for exhibiting contraceptives on the grounds that it violated Baird First Amendment rights, but sustained the conviction for giving away the foam. The law permitted …show more content…
The right to petition often involves the right to walk. The right of assembly may mean pushing or jostling. Picketing involves physical activity, as well as a display of a sign. A sit-in can be a quiet, dignified protest that has First Amendment protection even though no speech is involved, as we held in Brown v. Louisiana, supra. Putting contraceptives on display is certainly an aid to speech and discussion. Handing an article under discussion to a member of the audience is a technique known to all teachers, and is commonly used. A handout may be on such a scale as to smack of a vendor's marketing scheme. But passing one article to an audience is merely a projection of the visual aid, and should be a permissible adjunct of free speech. Baird was not making a prescription, nor purporting to give medical advice. Handing out the article was not even a suggestion that the lady use it. At most, it suggested that she become familiar with the product