November 6, 2011
Facts:
In April of 1968, Paul Robert Cohen was arrested in a corridor of the Los Angeles County Municipal Courthouse for wearing a jacket with the phrase, “Fuck the Draft,” on it. Because there were women and children present and the phrase was within plain sight of everyone there, Cohen was charged with being in violation of California Penal Code statute 415, which prohibits “maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct . . . .” Cohen was convicted and was sentenced to 30 days in jail.
Legal Issue:
The issue to be decided here is whether or not California Penal Code statute 415 infringed on Cohen’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of expression.
Decision:
The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Cohen’s original conviction saying, “At least so long as there is no showing of an intent to incite disobedience to or disruption of the draft, Cohen could not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, be punished for asserting the evident position on the inutility or immorality of the draft his jacket reflected.”
Analysis:
The court said that in this case the words on Cohen’s jacket did not fall into any of the categories of unprotected speech. They were not fighting words, obscene words or hate speech. Furthermore the court said that after seeing Cohen’s jacket, no reasonable person would be moved to violence by these words and anyone present who saw the words on his jacket could choose to look elsewhere.
Questions:
- If the phrase on Cohen’s jacket was not considered obscene, is there any phrase that would be considered obscene?
- How does this case affect what is considered appropriate to wear in public?
- How does this case compare to Chaplinsky v New Hampshire?
One thought on “Cohen v California (1971)”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
November 14th, 2011 at 2:01 am
Even though the “F word” maybe not be on the obscene word list, I think the content that it is used in implies that it is perhaps offensive conduct.
To get technically, I think if the font on the shirt took over the majority of the shirt, I would say that person is purposely trying to advertise and be outspoken.
I think that word today has taken on a meaning of disrespect when using it. I think this case allows people to find a loophole if you will on inappropriate clothing by the obscene word list and relaxes further cases. In the decision it says that is did not incite disruption or disobedience to the draft. I think this phrase is publically saying I hate this and I am against it. I still think his intentions were bad.
The First Amendment helps to let people speak freely but even today I think the “f word” is still a bit strong on inappropriate intentions. I think the actions in what he was doing with his shirt as well could change this ruling however it seems at the time his actions were non threating. He was simply walking around with it.
This local law was put to challenge by our federal rights. It’s tough to draw that line of what is appropriate and is not.
It can be applied to the Chaplinsky v New Hampshire case by looking at the, “categories of speech fall outside the bounds of constitutional protection.”
Although the “f word” maybe not be fighting words I myself would consider that, in this phrase, lewd toward the draft.