Document: 403 U.S. 15 91 S.Ct. 1780 29 L.Ed.2d 284 Paul Robert COHEN, Appellant,v.State of CALIFORNIA. No. 299. Argued Feb. 22, 1971. Decided June 7, Syllabus Appellant was convicted violating that part Cal. Penal Code § 415 which prohibits 'maliciously and willfully disturb(ing) the peace or quiet any neighborhood person * by offensive conduct,' for wearing a jacket bearing words 'Fuck Draft' in corridor Los Angeles Courthouse. The Court Appeal held 'offensive conduct' means 'behavior has tendency to provoke others acts violence turn disturb peace,' affirmed conviction. Held: Absent more particularized compelling reason its actions, State may not, consistently with First Fourteenth Amendments, make simple public display this single four-letter expletive criminal offense. Pp. 22—26. 1 Cal.App.3d 94, 81 Cal.Rptr. 503, reversed. Melville B. Nimmer, Angeles, Cal., appellant. Michael T. Sauer, appellee. Mr. Justice HARLAN delivered opinion Court. This case seem at first blush too inconsequential find way into our books, but issue it presents is no small constitutional significance. 2 Cohen Municipal California conduct *.'1 He given 30 days' imprisonment. facts upon his conviction rests are detailed California, Second Appellate District, as follows: 3 'On April 26, 1968, defendant observed County Courthouse outside division 20 municipal court were plainly visible. There women children present corridor. arrested. testified he wore knowing on informing depth feelings against Vietnam War draft. 4 'The did not engage in, nor threaten anyone result fact commit act violence. loud unusual noise, there evidence uttered sound prior arrest.' 97—98, 505 (1969). 5 In affirming had proved element because, case, '(i)t certainly reasonably foreseeable such might cause rise up violent attempt forceably remove jacket.' Cal.App.3d, 99—100, Cal.Rptr., 506. Supreme declined review divided vote.2 We brought here, postponing consideration question jurisdiction over appeal hearing merits. 399 904, 90 2211, 26 558. now reverse. 6 need detain us long. Throughout proceedings below, claimed that, construed apply statute infringed rights freedom expression guaranteed Amendments Federal Constitution. That contention been rejected highest state could be had. Accordingly, we fully satisfied properly invoked appeal. 28 U.S.C. 1257(2); Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 257 282, 42 106, 66 L.Ed. 239 (1921). 7 order lay hands precise involves, useful canvass various matters record does present. 8 quite clearly asserted offensiveness used convey message public. only 'conduct' sought punish communication. Thus, deal here resting solely 'speech,' cf. Stromberg 283 359, 51 532, 75 1117 (1931), separately identifiable allegedly intended perceived expressive particular views which, face, necessarily hence arguably regulated without effectively repressing Cohen's ability express himself. Cf. United States O'Brien, 391 367, 88 1673, 672 (1968). Further, lacks power underlying content inscription conveyed. At least so long showing an intent incite disobedience disruption draft, punished asserting evident position inutility immorality draft reflected. Yates States, 354 298, 77 1064, 1356 (1957). 9 Appellant's conviction, then, squarely exercise 'freedom speech' protected from arbitrary governmental interference Constitution can justified, if all, valid regulation manner exercised freedom, permissible prohibition substantive conveys. end inquiry, course, have never thought give absolute protection every individual speak whenever wherever pleases use form address circumstances chooses. vein, too, however, think important note several issues typically associated problems presented here. 10 place, tried under applicable throughout entire State. Any support ground seeks preserve appropriately decorous atmosphere courthouse where arrested must fail absence language would put appellant notice certain kinds otherwise speech nevertheless, law, tolerated places. See Edwards South Carolina, 372 229, 236—237, 83 680, 683—684, 697, n. 11 (1963). Adderley Florida, 385 39, 87 242, 17 149 (1966). No fair reading phrase said sufficiently inform ordinary distinctions between locations thereby created.3 second comes us, cannot fall within those relatively few categories instances decisions established government comprehensively forms simply employed. example, obscenity case. Whatever else necessary States' broader prohibit obscene expression, be, some significant way, erotic. Roth 476, 1304, 1498 It plausibly maintained vulgar allusion Selective Service System conjure psychic stimulation likely confronted crudely defaced jacket. 12 also free ban use, demonstration additional justifying circumstances, so-called 'fighting words,' personally abusive epithets when addressed citizen, are, matter common knowledge, inherently reaction. Chaplinsky New Hampshire, 315 568, 62 766, 86 1031 (1942). While word displayed relation uncommonly employed provocative fashion, instance 'directed hearer.' Cantwell Connecticut, 310 296, 309, 60 900, 906, 84 1213 (1940). actually regarded appellant's direct personal insult. Nor do State's police prevent speaker intentionally provoking group hostile Feiner York, 340 315, 71 303, 95 295 (1951); Terminiello Chicago, 337 1, 69 894, 93 1131 (1949). is, noted above, who saw violently aroused result. 13 Finally, arguments before much made claim distasteful mode thrust unwilling unsuspecting viewers, therefore legitimately protect sensitive unavoidable exposure crude protest. Of mere presumed presence unwitting listeners viewers serve automatically justify curtailing all capable giving See, e.g., Organization Better Austin Keefe, 402 415, 1575, (1971). recognized many situations intrusion privacy home unwelcome ideas totally banned dialogue, Rowan Post Office Dept., 397 728, 1484, 25 736 (1970), same time stressed 'we often 'captives' sanctuary subject objectionable speech.' Id., 738, S.Ct., 1491. government, consonant Constitution, shut off discourse other words, dependent substantial interests being invaded essentially intolerable manner. view authority empower majority silence dissidents predilections. 14 regard, persons different posture than, say, subjected raucous emissions trucks blaring their residences. Those avoid further bombardment sensibilities averting eyes. And, while one recognizable interest walking through strolling Central Park, surely nothing like unwanted confines one's own home. supra. Given subtlety complexity factors involved, 'speech' entitled protection, 'listeners' building briefly exposed breach where, powerless object it, portion evinces concern, either face courts, special plight captive auditor, but, instead, indiscriminately sweeps prohibitions disturbs 'any person.' supra.4 II Against background, flushed stands out bold relief. whether excise, scurrilous epithet discourse, theory below reaction general assertion acting guardians morality, vocabulary. 16 rationale untenable. most reflects 'undifferentiated fear apprehension disturbance (which) enough overcome right expression.' Tinker Des Moines Indep. Community School Dist., 393 508, 89 733, 737, 21 731 shown numbers citizens standing ready strike physically whoever assault execrations Cohen. about lawless proclivities, insufficient base erect, values, force wish ventilate dissident avoiding expression. argument amounts little than self-defeating proposition physical censorship response hypothetical coterie lawless, effectuate themselves. Ashton Kentucky, 384 195, 200, 1407, 1410, 469 (1966); Cox Louisiana, 379 536, 550—551, 85 453, 462—463, 471 (1965). Admittedly, obvious taken disable punishing utterance unseemly maintain what they regard suitable level body politic.5 think, examination reflection will reveal shortcomings contrary viewpoint. 18 outset, overemphasize judgment, justifiable regulating exceptions, discussed above usual rule bodies prescribe Equally conclusion backdrop decision made. powerful medicine society diverse populous ours. designed restraints arena discussion, putting shall voiced largely each hope ultimately produce citizenry perfect polity belief approach comport premise dignity choice political system rests. Whitney 274 357, 375—377, 47 641, 648 649, 1095 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring). 19 To many, immediate consequence appear verbal tumult, discord, even utterance. These limits, truth side effects enduring values process open debate permits achieve. air times filled cacophony sense sign weakness strength. lose sight trifling annoying abuse privilege, these fundamental societal truly implicated. why '(w)holly neutral futilities come Keats' poems Donne's sermons,' Winters 333 507, 528, 68 665, 676, 92 840 (1948) (Frankfurter, dissenting), 'so peaceful, communication meet standards acceptability,' perception policies discern considerations peculiarly call reversal First, principle contended seems boundless. How distinguish word? Surely cleanse point grammatically palatable squeamish among us. Yet readily ascertainable exists stopping short affirm judgment below. For, litigated perhaps genre, nevertheless true man's vulgarity another's lyric. Indeed, because officials principled area leaves taste style individual. Additionally, overlook fact, well illustrated episode involved linguistic serves dual communicative function: conveys precise, detached explication, inexpressible emotions well. chosen emotive cognitive force. sanction solicitous function practically speaking, overall communicated. Frankfurter said, '(o)ne prerogatives American citizenship criticize men measures—and informed responsible criticism foolishly moderation.' Baumgartner 322 673—674, 64 1240, 1245, 1525 (1944). 22 indulge facile assumption forbid running risk suppressing process. governments soon seize convenient guise banning unpopular views. able, social benefit opening door grave results. 23 sum, absent Because sustainable issue, 24 Reversed. BLACKMUN, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE BLACK join. I dissent, two reasons: 1. absurd immature antic, my view, mainly speech. Street 394 576, 1354, 572 (1969); 555, 464, (1965); Giboney Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 490, 502, 684, 690, 834 appears described 100, characterize otherwise. me sphere (1942), Murphy, known champion Amendment freedoms, wrote unanimous bench. As consequence, Court's agonizing misplaced unnecessary. 27 2. am Appeal's construction authoritative construction. filed October 1969. four-to-three vote December 17. 104, 503. A month later, January 27, 1970, another evidently time. re Bushman, Cal.3d 767, 375, 463 P.2d 727. Chief Traynor, dissenters court's refusal take opinion. 'is unconstitutionally vague overbroad' said: '(T)hat section makes punishable wilful malicious endangers safety creates clear danger nature. '* (It) nonviolent unless incites threatens *.' Cal.3d, 773—774, 379, P.2d, 731. cited 773, 378, 730, convinced description itself completely consistent 'clear danger' standard enunciated Bushman. Inasmuch dismiss ought remanded reconsideration light subsequently rendered tribunal 31 WHITE concurs Paragraph BLACKMUN'S dissenting provides full: 'Every maliciously person, tumultuous conduct, threatening, traducing, quarreling, challenging fight, fighting, who, streets unincorporated town, highways run horse race, wager amusement, fire gun pistol vulgar, profane, indecent children, boisterous manner, guilty misdemeanor, competent fine exceeding hundred dollars, imprisonment Jail ninety days, both imprisonment, either, discretion Court.' suggestion supervening 727 'not construction.' Post, (BLACKMUN, dissenting). course Bushman opinion, Traynor stated: '(One may) disturbing 'offensive' (within meaning 415) actions wilfully engages (People (1969) 101, 503.)' 730. perceive difference substance Appeal, particularly approving citation illuminating transpired entered courtroom building. removed stood folder arm. Meanwhile, policeman sent presiding judge suggesting contempt court. officer after emerged courtroom. App. 18—19. portions distinctions. For 'the noise' using 'vulgar, manner.' secondquoted provision actor fairer prohibited. buttresses portion, applied justified differently situated recipients. amicus urges, force, since statute, construed, punishes react violently. However, erect virtually irrebuttable presumption results, thus impose, effect, flat word. With posture, inappropriate inquire clear, reasons expressed merely proscribes broadly discriminating occurs places offends persons, unreasonable seek full broad sweep alternate this. patently acceptance justification presently render overbroad vague, answer appellee's pass record.

Category: 2