Legal Service India - Historical Cases
law  in India

Historical Cases

Written by: Ward v. Rock Against Racism - Bartolomeo Vanzetti & Nicola Sacco
click here for LIVE help-desk
Chat with us  (2 PM - 9 PM IST)
Legal Advice | Find a lawyer | Constitutional law | Judgments | forms | PIL | family law | Cyber Law | Law Forum | Income-Tax | Consumer laws | Company laws
Search On:laws in IndiaLawyers Search

Copyright Online in India
Right from your Desktop - Ph no: 9891244487

Home \ Courtroom Humor

Historical Facts | Court Room Humour | World leaders | Famous Trials | Washington, George | Idi Amin | For Latest Supreme Court Judgments

Government controlled rock music?

Rock Against Racism sponsored an annual concert in Central Park. After the concert produced complaints about noise, and after several other attempts to control the sound failed, New York established a regulation requiring all groups using the Bandshell to use sound equipment and technicians provided by the City. RAR sued, asking for the regulation to be declared unconstitutional. The district court found the regulation constitutional, but the appellate court reversed this decision.

Further facts and some interesting arguments can be found in the Court's decision and the oral argument in Ward v. RAR,
Oyez Oyez Oyez: Ward v. Rock Against Racism - Abstract

Ward v. Rock Against Racism

Greatest Hits CD-ROM
Facts of the Case
New York City, responding to complaints of high-decibel concerts adjoiningresidential neighborhoods, mandated the use of city-provided sound systemsand technicians for concerts in Central Park. Members of rock groupclaimed that the inability to use their own sound equipment andtechnicians in a concert in a public forum interfered with their FirstAmendment rights of expression.Question PresentedDoes the New York ordinance substituting a city-employed technician andmixing board for a performer's mixer and equipment violate the FirstAmendment?

No. The Court upheld the ordinance, giving broad deference to thegovernment's interest in maintaining order. As long as "the means chosenare not substantially broader than necessary to achieve the government'sinterest," a regulation will not be invalidated because a court concludesthat the government's interest "could be adequately served by some less-speech-restrictive alternative."


Bartolomeo Vanzetti & Nicola Sacco

On April 15 year 1920, a guard and a paymaster were killed during a payroll hold-up outside a shoe factory near Boston, the bandits escaped, but three weeks later two Italian immigrants were arrested on firearms charges and subsequently charged with the payroll murder. One was a shoemaker named Nicola Sacco, the other a fish peddler named Bartolomeo Vanzetti -and their names were to echo through the decades to the shame of American Justice.

The events occurred during one of America's 'Red scares' Sacco and held anarchist view, and their trial in May 1921 proved a grotesque travesty. The facts that the accused were immigrants and held anarchist views were enough to convict them. And their fates were sealed when the prosecution tried to prove by dubious means that Sacco's, 32 Colt was the murder weapon. The judicial atmosphere of the court was barely credible. The accused was referred to as 'wops', 'dagos', and sons of bitches. And judge Webster Thayer disclosed an open detestation of foreigners. (Did you see what I did to those anarchist bastards?) He asked after the proceeding.
The accused was found guilty of first-degree murder. But the courtroom charade had not passed unnoticed among American liberals. The immigrant case became a cause celebre and through the next 6 years a campaign for retrial gathered ground on both sides of Atlantic. Worldwide protests and mass fund raising meetings contributed to various appeals, to couple it the entire whole affair became complicated in by 1925 when a convicted gangster named Celestino Madeiros confessed to the payroll robbery and stated that the two men were innocent. Since Madeiros was awaiting execution, however, his testimony was of limited value.

In July 1927 a three men committee was appointed to re-examine the evidence. Authoritative testimony came for the prosecution from Major Calvin Goddard, a pioneer of forensic ballistics. Using the recent invention of the comparison microscope, he showed conclusively that the fatal bullets had allegedly been fired by Sacco's gun (but had the bullets been planted on him? So much was at stake by now in the case that both defence and prosecutions were fighting dirty).

On 3 August 1927, the state Governor refused a retrial. Sacco and Vanzetti must die, and following the final denial of clemency, riot squads were called out in several US cities, while bombs went off in New York and Philadelphia and there were strikes and riots in Europe and South America. It was all to no avail. Sacco and Vanzetti went to the electric chair in Boston's Charlestown Prison on 23 August 1927. Both men mentioned their innocence in the end and their death inspired a wealth of poems, novels, and plays. If historians still raise some question marks over their innocence, it is certain that they should never have been convicted on the evidence: in 1977, a special proclamation by the Governor of Massachusetts officially cleared their names.

The most moving tribute on their memory, through, was penned by Vanzetti himself. In a statement written before his death he willingly accepted his martyrdom. He wrote of his pride that the pair of them -- a shoemaker and a poor fish peddler-- should have contributed by chance to such an upheaval in the public conscience. : 'Never in our full life could we hope to do such work for tolerance, for justice, for man's understanding of men as now we do with accident The last moment belongs to us -- that agony is our triumph.'

Print This Article


Lawyers Search

Find a lawyer
Know your legal options
Information about your legal issues

File Mutual Consent Divorce

Right Away
Call us at Ph no: 9650499965
Copyright Registration Online Right from your Desktop...
*Call us at Ph no: 9891244487

Legal Advice

Get legal advice from Highly qualified lawyers within 48hrs.
with complete solution.

    Your Name                Your E-mail

Legal Service India

lawyers in Delhi
lawyers in Chandigarh
lawyers in Allahabad
lawyers in Lucknow
lawyers in Jodhpur
lawyers in Jaipur
lawyers in New Delhi
lawyers in Nashik
Contract laws
Protect your website
Army law
lawyers in Mumbai
lawyers in Pune
lawyers in Nagpur
lawyers in Ahmedabad
lawyers in Surat
Faridabad lawyers
Noida lawyers
lawyers in Dimapur
Trademark Registration in India
Woman issues
Famous Trials
lawyers in Kolkata
lawyers in Janjgir
lawyers in Rajkot
lawyers in Indore
Gurgaon lawyers
Ghaziabad lawyers
lawyers in Guwahati
Protect your website
Law Colleges
Legal Profession
Transfer of Petition
Lawyers in India - Search by City legal Service India
lawyers in Chennai
lawyers in Bangalore
lawyers in Hyderabad
lawyers in Cochin
lawyers in Agra
lawyers in Siliguri
Lawyers in Auckland
Cause Lists
Immigration Law
Medico Legal
lawyers in Dhaka
lawyers in Dubai
lawyers in London
lawyers in New York
lawyers in Toronto
lawyers in Sydney
lawyers in Los Angeles
Cheque bounce laws
Lok Adalat, legal Aid and PIL

About Us | Privacy | Terms of use | Juvenile Laws | Divorce by mutual consent | Lawyers | Submit article | Lawyers Registration | Sitemap | Contact Us

legal Service is Copyrighted under the Registrar of Copyright Act ( Govt of India) 2000-2017
ISBN No: 978-81-928510-0-6