Cohen v. California - wikipedia Cohen v. California Cohen v. California Supreme Court of the United States 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 Prior history 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 history 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 Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices Hugo Black William O. Douglas John M. Harlan II William J. Brennan, Jr. Potter Stewart Byron White Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun Case opinions Majority Harlan, joined by Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall Dissent Blackmun, joined by Burger, Black ; White ( in part ) Laws applied U.S. Const. amend. I ; Cal. Penal Code § 415 Wikisource has original text related to this article : Cohen v. California Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 ( 1971 ), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of speech. The Court overturned a man 's conviction for the crime of disturbing the peace for wearing a jacket in the public corridors of a courthouse that displayed the phrase, `` Fuck the Draft ''. Contents 1 Background of the case 2 The Court 's decision 2.1 Blackmun 's dissent 3 See also 4 References 5 Further reading 6 External links Background of the case On April 26, 1968, 19 - year - old Paul Robert Cohen was arrested for wearing a jacket bearing the words `` Fuck the Draft '' inside the Los Angeles Courthouse in the corridor outside the division 20 of the municipal court. 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, '' and sentenced to 30 days in jail. 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 case was argued by Melville Nimmer, representing Paul Robert Cohen, and Michael T. Sauer, representing California. The Court 's decision The Court, by a vote of 5 - 4, per Justice John Marshall Harlan II, overturned the appellate court 's ruling. First, Justice Harlan began by emphasizing that this case concerned `` speech '', and not `` conduct '', as was at issue in United States v. O'Brien. Harlan then stated that any attempt by California to abridge the content of Cohen 's speech would be no doubt unconstitutional except in a few instances, like, for example, if California was regulating the time, place, or manner of Cohen 's speech independent from the content of the speech. Second, Harlan also expressed the concern of the Court that section 415 was vague and did not put citizens on notice as to what behavior was unlawful. Indeed, the words `` offensive conduct '' alone can not `` be said sufficiently to inform the ordinary person that distinctions between certain locations are thereby created. '' Third, the mere use of an untoward four - letter word did not place the speech into a category of speech that has traditionally been subject to greater regulations by the government, as in Roth v. United States, for example. Similarly, Harlan and the Court refused to categorize the speech at issue as a `` fighting word '' under Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, because no `` individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words on appellant 's jacket as a direct personal insult. '' Finally, the Court was unwilling to give credence to the idea that the government could suppress the type of speech at issue here in order to protect the public at large. Having discarded what was not at issue in this case, Harlan stated that the issue was `` whether California can excise, as `` offensive conduct '', one particular scurrilous epithet from the public discourse, either upon the theory... that its use is inherently likely to cause violent reaction or upon a more general assertion that the States, acting as guardians of public morality, may properly remove this offensive word from the public vocabulary. '' The states could not. As to the first theory, the Court stated that it was not presented with any evidence suggesting that the speech was likely to cause an incitement to violence. As to the second theory, the Court stated that while it was a closer call, the rationale was not sufficient. Specifically, Harlan, citing Justice Brandeis ' opinion in Whitney v. California, emphasized that the First Amendment operates to protect the inviolability of the marketplace of ideas imagined by the Founding Fathers. Allowing California to suppress the speech at issue in this case would be destructive to that marketplace. `` To many, the immediate consequence of this freedom may often appear to be only verbal tumult, discord, and even offensive utterance '', Justice Harlan wrote. `` These are, however, within established limits, in truth necessary side effects of the broader enduring values which the process of open debate permits us to achieve. That the air may at times seem filled with verbal cacophony is, in this sense not a sign of weakness but of strength. '' `` ( A ) bsent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions '', Harlan continued, `` 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 his opinion Justice Harlan famously wrote `` one man 's vulgarity is another 's lyric. '' Thus, Harlan 's arguments can be constructed in three major points : First, states ( California ) can not censor their citizens in order to make a `` civil '' society. Second, knowing where to draw the line between harmless heightened emotion and vulgarity can be difficult. Third, people bring passion to politics and vulgarity is simply a side effect of a free exchange of ideas -- no matter how radical they may be. 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. The second paragraph of Blackmun 's dissent 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. '' See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 403 References Jump up ^ American Constitutional Law ; Civil Rights & Liberties ; Stephens & Scheb ; Pg. 189 Jump up ^ 403 U.S. 25. Jump up ^ 403 U.S. 26. Jump up ^ 403 U.S. 25. Jump up ^ 403 U.S. 27. Jump up ^ 403 U.S. 28. Further reading Balter - Reitz, Susan J. ( 2003 ). `` Cohen v. California ''. In Parker, Richard A. ( ed. ). Free Speech on Trial : Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions. Tuscaloosa, AL : University of Alabama Press. pp. 160 -- 171. ISBN 0 - 8173 - 1301 - X. CS1 maint : Extra text : editors list ( link ) Fairman, Christopher M. ( 2009 ). Fuck : Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties. Sphinx Publishing. ISBN 1572487119. External links Text of Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 ( 1971 ) is available from : Findlaw Justia BC First Amendment Library entry for Cohen v. California Abstract on Cohen v. California, from OYEZ Krattenmaker, Thomas G. ( 2012 ). `` Looking Back at Cohen v. California : A 40 Year Retrospective from Inside the Court ''. William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal. 20 : 651. ; a retrospective on the case by Thomas G. Krattenmaker, the Supreme Court clerk who drafted the majority opinion United States First Amendment case law Establishment Clause Public funding Everson v. Board of Education ( 1947 ) McCollum v. Board of Education ( 1948 ) Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York ( 1970 ) Lemon v. Kurtzman ( 1971 ) Marsh v. Chambers ( 1983 ) Mueller v. Allen ( 1983 ) Aguilar v. Felton ( 1985 ) Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet ( 1994 ) Agostini v. Felton ( 1997 ) Mitchell v. Helms ( 2000 ) Zelman v. Simmons - Harris ( 2002 ) Locke v. Davey ( 2004 ) Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn ( 2011 ) Public displays Stone v. Graham ( 1980 ) Lynch v. Donnelly ( 1984 ) Board of Trustees of Scarsdale v. McCreary ( 1985 ) County of Allegheny v. ACLU ( 1989 ) McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky ( 2005 ) Van Orden v. Perry ( 2005 ) Pleasant Grove City v. Summum ( 2009 ) School prayer Zorach v. Clauson ( 1952 ) Engel v. Vitale ( 1962 ) Abington School District v. Schempp ( 1963 ) Stone v. Graham ( 1980 ) Wallace v. Jaffree ( 1985 ) Lee v. Weisman ( 1992 ) Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe ( 2000 ) Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow ( 2004 ) Creationism Epperson v. Arkansas ( 1968 ) Edwards v. Aguillard ( 1987 ) Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ( M.D. Pa. 2005 ) Legislature prayer Marsh v. Chambers ( 1983 ) Town of Greece v. Galloway ( 2014 ) Establishment Clause, Other McGowan v. Maryland ( 1961 ) Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York ( 1970 ) McDaniel v. Paty ( 1978 ) Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc. ( 1985 ) Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock ( 1989 ) Hosanna - Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( 2012 ) Free Exercise Clause Reynolds v. United States ( 1879 ) Davis v. Beason ( 1890 ) Schneider v. New Jersey ( 1939 ) Cantwell v. Connecticut ( 1940 ) Minersville School District v. Gobitis ( 1940 ) Murdock v. Pennsylvania ( 1943 ) United States v. Ballard ( 1944 ) Braunfeld v. Brown ( 1961 ) Torcaso v. Watkins ( 1961 ) Sherbert v. Verner ( 1963 ) Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church ( 1969 ) Wisconsin v. Yoder ( 1972 ) Harris v. McRae ( 1980 ) Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division ( 1981 ) United States v. Lee ( 1982 ) Bob Jones University v. United States ( 1983 ) Bowen v. Roy ( 1986 ) Goldman v. Weinberger ( 1986 ) Employment Division v. Smith ( 1990 ) Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah ( 1993 ) City of Boerne v. Flores ( 1997 ) Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton ( 2002 ) Cutter v. Wilkinson ( 2005 ) Gonzales v. UDV ( 2006 ) Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer ( 2017 ) Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ( under consideration ) Freedom of speech ( portal ) Sedition and imminent danger Alien and Sedition Acts ( 1798 ) Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten ( S.D.N.Y. 1917 ) Schenck v. United States ( 1919 ) Abrams v. United States ( 1919 ) Gitlow v. New York ( 1925 ) Whitney v. California ( 1927 ) Dennis v. United States ( 1951 ) Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board ( 1955, 1961 ) Yates v. United States ( 1957 ) Bond v. Floyd ( 1966 ) Brandenburg v. Ohio ( 1969 ) Hess v. Indiana ( 1973 ) False speech Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. ( 1974 ) United States v. Alvarez ( 2012 ) Fighting words and the heckler 's veto Cantwell v. Connecticut ( 1940 ) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire ( 1942 ) Terminiello v. Chicago ( 1949 ) Feiner v. New York ( 1951 ) Gregory v. Chicago ( 1969 ) National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie ( 1977 ) R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul ( 1992 ) Snyder v. Phelps ( 2011 ) Elonis v. United States ( 2015 ) Freedom of assembly and public forums Hague v. CIO ( 1939 ) Schneider v. New Jersey ( 1939 ) Thornhill v. Alabama ( 1940 ) Martin v. City of Struthers ( 1943 ) Marsh v. Alabama ( 1946 ) Niemotko v. Maryland ( 1951 ) Edwards v. South Carolina ( 1963 ) Cox v. Louisiana ( 1965 ) Brown v. Louisiana ( 1966 ) Adderley v. Florida ( 1966 ) Carroll v. Town of Princess Anne ( 1968 ) Coates v. Cincinnati ( 1971 ) Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe ( 1971 ) Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner ( 1972 ) Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins ( 1980 ) Widmar v. Vincent ( 1981 ) Hill v. Colorado ( 2000 ) McCullen v. Coakley ( 2014 ) Packingham v. North Carolina ( 2017 ) Symbolic speech Stromberg v. California ( 1931 ) United States v. O'Brien ( 1968 ) Cohen v. California ( 1971 ) Smith v. Goguen ( 1974 ) Texas v. Johnson ( 1989 ) United States v. Eichman ( 1990 ) Virginia v. Black ( 2003 ) Compelled speech Minersville School District v. Gobitis ( 1940 ) West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ( 1943 ) Wooley v. Maynard ( 1977 ) Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth ( 2000 ) Davenport v. Washington Education Association ( 2007 ) Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 ( 2012 ) Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. ( 2013 ) Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ( under consideration ) Loyalty oaths American Communications Association v. Douds ( 1950 ) Garner v. Board of Public Works ( 1951 ) Speiser v. Randall ( 1958 ) Keyishian v. Board of Regents ( 1967 ) Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb ( 1974 ) School speech Minersville School District v. Gobitis ( 1940 ) West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ( 1943 ) Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District ( 1969 ) Island Trees School District v. Pico ( 1982 ) Bethel School District v. Fraser ( 1986 ) Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier ( 1988 ) Rosenberger v. University of Virginia ( 1995 ) Morse v. Frederick ( 2007 ) Obscenity Rosen v. United States ( 1896 ) United States v. One Book Called Ulysses ( S.D.N.Y. 1933 ) Roth v. United States ( 1957 ) One, Inc. v. Olesen ( 1958 ) Marcus v. Search Warrant ( 1961 ) MANual Enterprises v. Day ( 1962 ) Jacobellis v. Ohio ( 1964 ) Quantity of Books v. Kansas ( 1964 ) Freedman v. Maryland ( 1965 ) Ginzburg v. United States ( 1966 ) Memoirs v. Massachusetts ( 1966 ) Redrup v. New York ( 1967 ) Ginsberg v. New York ( 1968 ) Stanley v. Georgia ( 1969 ) Cohen v. California ( 1971 ) United States v. Thirty - seven Photographs ( 1971 ) Kois v. Wisconsin ( 1972 ) Miller v. California ( 1973 ) Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton ( 1973 ) United States v. 12 200 - ft. Reels of Film ( 1973 ) Jenkins v. Georgia ( 1974 ) Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville ( 1975 ) Young v. American Mini Theatres ( 1976 ) New York v. Ferber ( 1982 ) American Booksellers v. Hudnut ( 7th Cir., 1985 ) Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. ( 1986 ) Osborne v. Ohio ( 1990 ) United States v. X-Citement Video ( 1994 ) Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union ( 1997 ) United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group ( 2000 ) Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition ( 2002 ) Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union ( 2002 ) Nitke v. Gonzales ( S.D.N.Y., 2005 ) United States v. Williams ( 2008 ) FCC v. Fox Televisions Stations - 2 cases ( 2009 and 2012 ) American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland ( 6th Cir., 2009 ) United States v. Kilbride ( 9th Cir., 2009 ) United States v. Stevens ( 2010 ) Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association ( 2011 ) Public employees Pickering v. Board of Education ( 1968 ) Perry v. Sindermann ( 1972 ) Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth ( 1972 ) Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle ( 1977 ) Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District ( 1979 ) Connick v. Myers ( 1983 ) Rankin v. McPherson ( 1987 ) Waters v. Churchill ( 1994 ) Garcetti v. Ceballos ( 2006 ) Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri ( 2011 ) Heffernan v. City of Paterson ( 2016 ) Hatch Act and similar laws Ex parte Curtis ( 1882 ) United Public Workers v. Mitchell ( 1947 ) United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers ( 1973 ) Broadrick v. Oklahoma ( 1973 ) Licensing and restriction of speech Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio ( 1915 ) Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson ( 1952 ) Freedman v. Maryland ( 1965 ) Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council ( 1976 ) Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. ( 1982 ) Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans ( 2015 ) Matal v. Tam ( 2017 ) Commercial speech Valentine v. Chrestensen ( 1942 ) Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. ( 1970 ) Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations ( 1973 ) Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 1974 ) Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council ( 1976 ) Bates v. State Bar of Arizona ( 1977 ) Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro ( 1977 ) Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission ( 1980 ) Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n ( 1980 ) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California ( 1986 ) Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico ( 1986 ) San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee ( 1987 ) 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island ( 1996 ) Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. ( 2011 ) Campaign finance and political speech Buckley v. Valeo ( 1976 ) First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti ( 1978 ) Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley ( 1981 ) Brown v. Socialist Workers ' 74 Campaign Committee ( 1982 ) Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington ( 1983 ) FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life ( 1986 ) Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce ( 1990 ) McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission ( 1995 ) Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC ( 1996 ) Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC ( 2000 ) Republican Party of Minnesota v. White ( 2002 ) McConnell v. FEC ( 2003 ) Randall v. Sorrell ( 2006 ) FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. ( 2007 ) Davis v. FEC ( 2008 ) Citizens United v. FEC ( 2010 ) McComish v. Bennett ( 2011 ) American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock ( 2012 ) McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ( 2014 ) Williams - Yulee v. The Florida Bar ( 2015 ) Freedom of the press Prior restraints and censorship Near v. Minnesota ( 1931 ) Lovell v. City of Griffin ( 1938 ) Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc. ( 1946 ) New York Times Co. v. United States ( 1971 ) Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo ( 1974 ) Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart ( 1976 ) Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia ( 1978 ) Tory v. Cochran ( 2005 ) Privacy Time, Inc. v. Hill ( 1967 ) Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn ( 1975 ) Florida Star v. B.J.F. ( 1989 ) Taxation and privileges Grosjean v. American Press Co. ( 1936 ) Branzburg v. Hayes ( 1972 ) Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner ( 1983 ) Defamation Beauharnais v. Illinois ( 1952 ) New York Times Co. v. Sullivan ( 1964 ) Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts ( 1967 ) Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. ( 1974 ) Time, Inc. v. Firestone ( 1976 ) Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. ( 1984 ) Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. ( 1985 ) McDonald v. Smith ( 1985 ) Hustler Magazine v. Falwell ( 1988 ) Harte - Hanks Communications v. Connaughton ( 1989 ) Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. ( 1990 ) Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox ( 9th Cir., 2014 ) Broadcast media Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC ( 1969 ) FCC v. Pacifica Foundation ( 1978 ) Turner Broadcasting v. FCC ( 1994 ) Bartnicki v. Vopper ( 2001 ) Freedom of association Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath ( 1951 ) Watkins v. United States ( 1957 ) NAACP v. Alabama ( 1958 ) Baggett v. Bullitt ( 1964 ) In re Primus ( 1978 ) Roberts v. United States Jaycees ( 1984 ) Hurley v. Irish - American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston ( 1995 ) Boy Scouts of America v. Dale ( 2000 ) Retrieved from `` https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cohen_v._California&oldid=813041783 '' Categories : Conscription in the United States United States Supreme Court cases United States Free Speech Clause case law Legal history of California 1971 in United States case law American Civil Liberties Union litigation 1971 in California United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court Hidden categories : CS1 maint : Extra text : editors list Talk Contents About Wikipedia Русский 中文 Edit links This page was last edited on 1 December 2017, at 11 : 36. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia ® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. About Wikipedia

Question: who said one man's vulgarity is another's lyric
Answer: Justice Harlan; Justice Harlan; Justice Harlan; Justice Harlan