From: kadie@eff.org (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: What is "banning" anyway?
Originator: kadie@eff.org
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 20:03:48 GMT

Here are some more quotes from _Cohen vs. California_ and related
cases (from an email correspondent):

"In this regard, persons confronted with Cohen's jacket were in quite
a different posture than, say, those subjected tot he raucous emmissions
of sound trucks blaring outside their residences [presumably a reference
to the specific case of Kovacs v. Cooper (1949)].  Those in the Los
Angeles courthouse could effectively avoid further bombardment of their
sensibilities simply by averting their eyes.  And, while it may be that
one has a more substantial claim to a recognizable privacy interest when
walking through a courthouse corridor than, for example, strolling through
Central Park, surely it is nothing like the interest in being free from
unwanted expression in the confines of one's own home...."

_Kovacs v. Cooper_ says:

"Section 4 of the ordinance bars sound trucks from broadcasting in
a loud and raucous manner in the streets.  There is no restriction upon
the communication of ideas or discussion of issues by the human voice,
by newspapers, by pamphlets, by dodgers.  We think that the need for
reasonable protection in the homes or business houses from distracting
noises of vehicles equipped with such sound amplifying devices justifies
the ordinance."

_Carey v. Brown_ (1980): "In sum, 'no mandate in our Constitution
leaves States and governmental units powerless to pass laws to protect
the public from the kind of boisterous and threatening conduct that
disturbs the tranquility of spots selected by the people either for
homes, wherin they can escape the hurly-burly of the outside business
and political world, or for public buildings that require peace and
quiet to carry out their functions, such as courts, libraries,
schools, and hospitals.'"

- Carl

ANNOTATED REFERENCES

(All these documents are available on-line. Access information follows.)

=================
law/cohen-v-california.1
=================
Definition of "fighting words"; why no right not to be offended

The definition of fighting words from _Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire_
and then _Cohen v. California_. Also, says quotes the Supreme Court
saying that there is no universal right to not hear offensive
expression.

=================
law/cohen-v-california.2
=================
Netnews article with reference _Cohen v. California_, "in which the
court ruled that Cohen's jacket, which stated "Fuck the Draft" was a
protected form of free speech, even though he wore it in a county
courthouse."

=================
=================

These document(s) are available by anonymous ftp (the preferred
method) and by email. To get the file(s) via ftp, do an anonymous ftp
to ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.4), and get file(s):

  pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.1
  pub/academic/law/cohen-v-california.2

To get the file(s) by email, send email to archive-server@eff.org.
Include the line(s) (be sure to include the space before the file
name):

send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.1
send acad-freedom/law cohen-v-california.2

-- 
Carl Kadie -- I do not represent EFF; this is just me.
 =kadie@eff.org, kadie@cs.uiuc.edu =