PRIOR TO THE 1934 THORNHILL COURT DECISION, PICKETING WAS LARGELY ENJOINED. IT WAS BELIEVED THAT IT UNNECESSARILY HARMED THE BUSINESS CONCERNED. BUT THORNHILL ESTABLISHED PICKETING AS A FORM OF SPEECH. A DISCUSSION OF MALICIOUS PICKETING AND VINDICTIVENESS POINTS OUT SEVERAL COURT DECISIONS IN THIS REGARD. DECISIONS BASED ON OBJECTIONS TO MASS PICKETING, VIOLENCE, THREATS, INTIMIDATION, AND PHYSICIAL OBSTRUCTION ARE PRESENTED. THE ARTICLE CONTAINS EXAMPLES OF RULINGS ON SITUS PICKETING. THIS INVOLVES INFORMATIONAL PICKETING AT THE SITE OF THE ALLEGED WRONGDOING, RATHER THAN PICKETING AT ANOTHER SITE SIMPLY FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES....BDS