Cantwell V Connecticut Case Summary

In the Cantwell v. Connecticut case, Newton Cantwell and his two sons, Jesse and Russell, were convicted of two crimes that breached the Connecticut state law. The Cantwells were members of the Jehovah’s witnesses and claimed to be ordained ministers, due to their religious practices they believed that it was their duty to carry their messages to others. In order to spread their message, they carried along religious materials such as pamphlets, records, books, and also had a record player that played a recording called “Enemies”, which expressed Anti-Catholicism.
The initial issue in this situation is the neighborhood the Cantwells were promoting their religion, Cassius Street of New Haven, is a heavily populated with Roman Catholics. Jesse
Cantwell stopped two men on the street, who happened to be Roman Catholic, and with their permission allowed Jesse to play the recording, but the two men reacted angrily when it was heard. It is in that moment The Cantwells were arrested and convicted of solicitation without a permit and inciting a breach of the peace. For the first convicted crime, the statute claimed that the Cantwells could not “solicit money, services, and subscriptions or any valuable thing for any alleged religious, charitable or philanthropic cause, from other than a member of the organization for whose benefit such person is soliciting or within the county in which such person is located”. What was said further is that it especially could not be done if a permit was not acquired, but in order to obtain said permit, the government had the right to decide whether their cause was “a religious one or is a bona fide object of charity or philanthropy”, and also if it “conforms to reasonable standards of efficiency and integrity”. Also in addition to that, it was stated that the permit that was given could also be taken away at any moment they feel that the provision of the said section was violated in any way, and was even subject to imprisonment or a fine. The second charge, inciting a breach of the peace, the court made it a point to clarify that they were not charging the Cantwells on assault or the breach of peace on behalf of the Cantwells, but the fact that they were …show more content…
My opinion on the Supremes Court decision is that it was made correctly and that they have effectively abided by the Cantwells constitutional rights. Though I could understand the views of the Connecticut court on the solicitation conviction, its not unreasonable to assume someone’s intentions could actually be fraudulent. But, when you really take into consideration that the only way to determine the Cantwells religious intentions would be to question the religion itself, which is highly unethical for the government to decide. I whole heartedly agree with the
Supreme Courts decision to overturn the inciting of the breach of peace charge as well. By no means should someone acting peacefully be punished for the over emotional and aggressive actions for someone else. People could also argue that the Cantwells could have known better than to spread their message to a predominantly Roman Catholic neighborhood, it still is not enough to hold them responsible for others reactions. Though there are are certain cases in which people choose to be antagonizing and persistent, I could understand a person being pushed