Cooper判罪,被告不服,历经新泽西州上诉法院及最高法院维持原判,由被告最后上诉至联邦最高法院,认为其在宪法第一条修正案之言论自由及第十四条修正案之适法程序及公平保护之基本权利。联邦最高法院经过为时五十一日之听审(Oct.
11, 1948-Jan. 31, 1949)始作以下之裁决,认为该州最高法院之判决无误,该市对装置扩音器大声喧闹之卡车之禁止规定并未违宪。其理由如下:
①市街大道系言论文意见交换之公认正常场所,但非谓言论自由不受任何限制(City streets are recognized as a normal
place for the exchange of ideas by speech or paper. But this does not mean the
freedom is beyond all control);
②在一个尊重全民自由社会中,言论自由虽然占有优先地位,但它并不能让议员将其它市民对安和乐利之要求又置之不顾。因为不尊重他人权利而强行一已之言论自由的本身即系粗暴而专断之行为(“The
preferred position of freedom of speech in a society that cherishes liberty
for all does not require legislators to be insensible to claims by citizens
to comfort and convenience. To enforce freedom of speech in disregard of the
rights of others would be harsh and arbitrary in itself.”)。
③市政府之规则及禁令设计院并不含混,模糊或有欠明确肯定(the rules are not‘vague, obscure and indefinite’);
④该市政府之规定非在限制“意见之沟通”(communication of ideas)之自由,而系合理保障他人不受干涉之权利(a reasonable
protection from distraction亦即他人之隐私权必须加以尊重);
⑤言论自由在公共秩序维护人员无法加以保护的时间与情况之下,将成为有名无实的空洞字眼(“The right to speak one‘s mind
would often be an empty privilege in a place and at a time beyond the protecting
hand of the guardians of public order.”);
⑥因为任何人在家中或街上都无法逃避扩音器对其隐私权之干扰,除非经由市政府予以保护(“In his homeon or on the street
he is practically helpless to escape this interference with his privacy by loud
speakers except through the protection of the municipality.”);
⑦因此,“本院认为议会得行使其裁量权制定规程禁止装有扩音器之卡车在市街道通道加高音量,大声向公众广播。在十二万五千人口的春腾市的市区中,这种喧杂噪音将危害交通及传播信讯的有用时间,而且将使居民所向往的住宅区的宁静和听由宗教、社会或政治说教来摆布”(“We