Oberholzer, F. v. Galapo, S. Aplts.

Summary

The opinion holds that signs placed on the Galapos’ property were pure speech protected by Article I, Section 7 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, not picketing or expressive conduct. A court generally lacks power to enjoin speech, including speech supporting tort claims other than defamation, but may do so when pure residential speech invades substantial privacy interests in an essentially intolerable manner; the record here did not satisfy that standard. The opinion text is truncated before the final disposition, so the disposition cannot be determined from the supplied text.