Cohen v. California: Difference between revisions
Skyler1534 (talk | contribs) m The vote in this case was 5-4, not 6-3. |
|||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
==The Court's decision== |
==The Court's decision== |
||
The Court, by a vote of |
The Court, by a vote of 5-4, per Justice [[John Marshall Harlan II]], overturned the appellate court's ruling. "[A]bsent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions," it said, "the [[U.S. state|State]] may not, consistently with the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First]] and [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth]] Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter [[expletive]] a criminal offense." |
||
In the opinion Justice Harlan famously wrote "one man's [[vulgarity]] is another's [[lyric poetry|lyric]]." (That quotation was later criticized by [[Robert Bork]] as "[[moral relativism]].") <ref> [http://ctlibrary.com/1198 Conversations: Robert Bork says, Give me liberty, but don't give me filth] [[Christianity Today]] </ref> |
In the opinion Justice Harlan famously wrote "one man's [[vulgarity]] is another's [[lyric poetry|lyric]]." (That quotation was later criticized by [[Robert Bork]] as "[[moral relativism]].") <ref> [http://ctlibrary.com/1198 Conversations: Robert Bork says, Give me liberty, but don't give me filth] [[Christianity Today]] </ref> |
||
Revision as of 01:19, 28 November 2007
| Cohen v. California | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 22, 1971 Decided June 7, 1971 | |
| Full case name | Paul Robert Cohen, Appellant v. State of California |
| Citations | 403 U.S. 15 (more) 91 S. Ct. 1780; 29 L. Ed. 2d 284; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 32 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant convicted, Los Angeles Municipal Court; affirmed, 81 Cal. Rptr. 503 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969); rehearing denied, Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District 11-13-69; review denied, Supreme Court of California, 12-17-69 |
| Subsequent | Rehearing denied, 404 U.S. 876 (1971) |
| Holding | |
| The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, prohibits states from making the public display of a single four-letter expletive a criminal offense, without a more specific and compelling reason than a general tendency to disturb the peace. Court of Appeal of California reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Harlan, joined by Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall |
| Dissent | Blackmun, joined by Burger, Black, White (only paragraph 2) |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I; Cal. Penal Code § 415 | |
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of speech.
Background of the case
On April 26, 1968, Paul Robert Cohen, 19, was arrested for wearing a jacket with the words "Fuck the Draft" inside the Los Angeles Courthouse. He was convicted of violating section 415 of the California Penal Code, which prohibited "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person [by] offensive conduct."
The conviction was upheld by the California Court of Appeal, which held that "offensive conduct" means "behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace." After the California Supreme Court denied review, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari.
The Court's decision
The Court, by a vote of 5-4, per Justice John Marshall Harlan II, overturned the appellate court's ruling. "[A]bsent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions," it said, "the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense."
In the opinion Justice Harlan famously wrote "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric." (That quotation was later criticized by Robert Bork as "moral relativism.") [1]
Blackmun's dissent
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun, joined by Burger and Black, suggested that Cohen's wearing of the jacket in the courthouse was not speech but conduct (an "absurd and immature antic") and therefore not protected by the First Amendment. However, it was pointed out that Cohen took his jacket off while inside the city courtroom and was not held in contempt of court for its content; rather, he was arrested after he left the room.
The second paragraph of Blackmun's dissent, which White joined, noted that the Supreme Court of California construed section 415 in In re Bushman 1 Cal.3d 767, 83 Cal.Rptr. 375 (Cal, 1970), which was decided after the Court of Appeal of California's decision in Cohen v. California and the Supreme Court of California's denial of review. Blackmun wrote that the case "ought to be remanded to the California Court of Appeal for reconsideration in the light of the subsequently rendered decision by the State's highest tribunal in Bushman."