In a trio of cases handed down on the same day in 1950, the Supreme Court denied constitutional free speech protection to civil rights picketing and labor picketing. The civil rights case, Hughes v. Superior Court, has often been portrayed as an early test case about affirmative action, but it originated in repression of an alliance of radical labor and civil rights activists exasperated by the legislature's repeated failure to enact fair employment law. Seeking a people's law like the labor general strikers and sit-downers of the 1930s and the civil rights sit-inners of the 1960s, they insisted that the true meaning of free speech was the right to speak truth to power. Courts and Congress forced the labor movement to abandon direct action even as it became the defining feature of the civil rights movement. The free speech rights consciousness they invoked challenged the prevailing conservative conception of rights and law. Direct action was a form of legal argument, a subaltern law of solidarity. It was not, as civil rights protest is often portrayed, a form of civil disobedience. What happened during and after the case reveals how the subaltern law and formal law labor and civil rights began to diverge, along with the legal histories of the movements.

中文翻译：

---

“被法律压制的人没有希望，只有权力”：1940年代的言论自由和抗议

在 1950 年同一天宣判的三起案件中，最高法院否认宪法对公民权利纠察和劳工纠察的言论自由保护。民权案，休斯诉高等法院，经常被描绘成一个关于平权行动的早期测试案例，但它起源于对激进劳工和民权活动家联盟的镇压，该联盟因立法机构一再未能颁布公平就业法而激怒. 他们寻求像 1930 年代的劳工总罢工者和静坐者以及 1960 年代的民权静坐者那样的人民法律，他们坚持言论自由的真正含义是对权力说真话的权利。法院和国会迫使劳工运动放弃直接行动，即使它已成为民权运动的决定性特征。他们所唤起的言论自由权利意识挑战了盛行的保守的权利和法律观念。直接行动是法律论证的一种形式，是一种从属的团结法。正如人们经常描述的那样，这并不是公民抗命的一种形式。案件期间和之后发生的事情揭示了底层法律和正式法律劳工和公民权利如何开始分歧，以及运动的法律历史。