Reddit mentions of Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

First, this is a pretty minor case historically and old law that has been succeeded by plenty of more on-point cases for your purposes.


Second, the majority of the justices agree that the ordinance is void on its face because it "does not make comfort or convenience in the use of streets or parks the standard of official action. It enables the Director of Safety to refuse a permit on his mere opinion that such refusal will prevent 'riots, disturbances or disorderly assemblage.'" [emphasis added]. So, if an ordinance is curtailed to specific and legitimate regulation such as maintaining safety & comfort in the park and is also actually enforced that way, then it's constitutional. As other comments have said, your reading is too broad.


Third, regardless of the above, it's only a plurality, not a majority, with respect to whether the 1st Amend. applies via the 14th's due process clause (which is the generally accepted way) or the privileges & immunities clause (which Roberts & Black use and Stone, Reed, & Hughes criticize, believing it would limit the right to (a) citizens and (b) legislation like the Nat'l Lab. Rels. Act). This matters because it makes the opinion less weighty and could affect the type of speech and speakers who are protected (see Stone's concurring-in-judgment opinion referencing Roberts' opinion).


TL;DR - There is no TL;DR when you're dealing with the law. I'm not sure I know resources on how to interpret case law offhand, but I can recommend Legislation and Regulation by Manning & Stevenson for statutory interpretation and Constitutional Law by Sullivan & Gunther for Constitutional Law (but I recommend finding a library copy, because law books are way too expensive).