The city of Opelika charged Jones with violating a statute by selling books without a license. Jones, a Jehovah’s Witness, distributed religious pamphlets and books in exchange for donations. The contributions were not required; people without money were still given the literature. Jones challenged the statute claiming that it was an unfair tax on his religious freedom.
The Court ruled the practice of charging a flat fee for people distributing literature was unconstitutional.
| Majority Opinion: (Justice Douglas) |
“[T]he mere fact that the religious literature is 'sold' by itinerant preachers rather than 'donated' does not transform evangelism into a commercial enterprise. If it did, then the passing of the collection plate in church would make the church service a commercial project.” A minister who sells religious literature does not immediately become a book agent. Also, the freedom of press should not be restricted only to those who can afford to pay the licensing fee. “The tax imposed ... is a flat license tax, the payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment.” The tax is fixed and does not take into account the nature of the literature distributed. Traveling preachers faced a harmful burden by this fee. “The fact that the ordinance is 'nondiscriminatory' is immaterial. A license tax certainly does not acquire constitutional validity because it classifies the privileges protected by the First Amendment along with the wares and merchandise of hucksters and peddlers and treats them all alike.”
This decision overturns the initial decision in Jones v. Opelika. In this instance, the power of the state to charge a fee for people who want to exercise their freedom of speech is prohibited.
Copyright © The Religious Freedom Page.
|
