Labor's Right to Speak Out
A landmark court battle over whether workers can legally label businesses as 'unfair' in their own publications.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia has just handed down their decision in the contempt case against Gompers, Morrison, and Mitchell, growing out of the Buck Stove and Range case. While the injunction was affirmed, its terms were greatly modified. The court held that labor publications could not be prohibited from referring to this case through their columns as long as the firm was not published in a 'we don't patronize' list. A more sweeping injunction was never issued in a labor dispute than the original injunction issued in this case. By terms, the officials of the A.F. of L. or any affiliated members were forbidden to refer to the fact that the Buck Stove Range Co. were unfair, either by written or spoken word. President Gompers has steadily maintained that the injunction was in direct violation of the inherent right of free speech and free press and has stood ready to go to jail if necessary to uphold that right.
“President Gompers has steadily maintained that the injunction was in direct violation of the inherent right of free speech and free press and has stood ready to go to jail if necessary to uphold that right.”
This 1909 struggle over the limits of organized labor's speech predates many modern legal battles concerning corporate injunctions against boycotts. It captures the transition period where the courts were actively weaponizing the 'unfair' label as a form of illegal conspiracy.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.