In my government textbook it says that fighting words which includes profanity, obceniy, and threats are not protected speech by the constitution. Then it talks about how fighting words don't always have to be spoken, for example a guy wore a shirt that said "**** the draft" and the Supreme Court ruled that the shirt was fine because forbidding the use of certain words was limiting ideas. This seems contradictory to me. Can someone explain to me how this works?
2007-01-15 11:25:26 · 8 answers · asked by alikat4392 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The fighting words doctrine: words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.
In the case where a man wore a jacket that had "**** the Draft" written on the back, the Supreme Court reasoned that because the jacket's message was not directed at any individual, nor did it appear to incite anyone, it was not fighting words. So Cohen narrowed the fighting words doctrine, which is currently almost never used. Furthermore, the CA statute in question was overbroad anyway.
2007-01-15 13:50:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The reason there is inconsistency is because the Supreme Court is made up of different Justices and different times. These Justices all have their own interpretation of the law. Out of respect for prior decisions Justices will often not specifically overturn an old decision but essentially limit it to its facts then state the new rule. If you are wondering what the current law is look at the most recent decisions.
That being said the two cases you cite are not inconsistent one dealt with burning crosses in order to intimidate people the other was a T shirt worn by a hippie at a court house to make a political statement.
2007-01-15 11:53:42 · answer #2 · answered by Daz2020 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The case you are talking about is Cohen v California. Actually, this opinion is one of unique logic and genius rhetoric. Your facts are correct. The difference is that the court looked at HOW the obscene word was used. In this case it was f*** the draft.
The court reasoned that the context of the word can make it obscene. for example, if you had a shirt on that said f*** [Sandra Day] O'Connor, you could be arrested for obscenity since O'Connor can be f***ed (or the f-word is being used in an obscene way)
In this case, the court ruled that since the draft cannot be f***ed, the shirt must be speech protected by the first amendment and not obscenity.
2007-01-16 02:25:18 · answer #3 · answered by billnewman19 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The "fighting words" case was Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, way back circa 1940. That case had to do with the fact that a man was shouting "fighting words" in a crowd and his words, his manner of speaking them, and the context all combined to create the imminent possibility of starting a fight. But the case of the man with "**** the draft" on his jacket, Cohen v. California, circa 1970, was a case in which there was obviously no potential for any kind of fight erupting.
2007-01-15 11:53:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The person using the t-shirt could be arrested for profanity and obscenity but the policemen are not very strict with this case and seems to tolerate the misbehavior.
2007-01-15 11:33:15 · answer #5 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would fight to the death for a persons right to disagree with me.
I also stopped my car and spray painted over a bumper sticker which said if you don't like my driving call I 800 eat s..t.because I imagined my little girl asking me what that meant.
If you threaten someone I guess that's wrong.sometimes.maybe.I don't know really
I told my new trashy neighbours last week if they kept up with it all.you would not believe the amount of trashy unlawful weird things they do,then . I was getting out my guns.and friends together and were having a war.
No I cant explain it to you. sorry.
But if I wont to say something to someone, I just will.Y'all.
and I think all this political correctness that's sweeping this once great country is absolutely weird.you can go to far with that you know.
2007-01-15 11:42:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Really if you think about it, living in America, nothing can be said to one another, without being taken to court and being SUED. We No longer have FREEDOM OF SPEECH. So all these history books are more likely, obsolete.
2007-01-15 11:36:31 · answer #7 · answered by Moose 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm a government worker and if you think you have freedom of speech, well dream on.
2007-01-15 11:37:35 · answer #8 · answered by Adi 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋