Document: 414 U.S. 105 94 S.Ct. 326 38 L.Ed.2d 303 Gregory HESSv.State of INDIANA. No. 73—5290. Nov. 19, 1973. PER CURIAM. 1 Hess appeals from his conviction in the Indiana courts for violating State's disorderly conduct statute.1 Appellant contends that should be reversed because statute is unconstitutionally vague, Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 385, 46 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926), overbroad it forbids activity protected under First and Fourteenth Amendments, Gooding Wilson, 405 518, 92 1103, 31 408 (1972), statute, as applied here, abridged constitutionally freedom speech, Terminiello Chicago, 337 1, 69 894, 93 1131 (1949). These contentions were rejected City Court, where was convicted, Superior which reviewed conviction.2 The Supreme Court Indiana, with one dissent, considered each Hess' constitutional contentions, accordingly affirmed conviction, Ind., 297 N.E.2d 413. 2 events leading to began an antiwar demonstration on campus University. In course demonstration, approximately 100 150 demonstrators moved onto a public street blocked passage vehicles. When did not respond verbal directions sheriff clear street, deputies walking up their path curbs either side, joining large number spectators who had gathered. standing off passed him. heard utter word 'fuck' what he later described loud voice immediately arrested him charge. It stipulated appellant said 'We'll take fucking later,' or again.' Two witnesses immediate vicinity testified, apparently without contradiction, they words witnessed arrest. They indicated appear exhorting crowd go back into facing when uttered statement, statement addressed any particular person group, tone, although loud, no louder than other people area. 3 Indiana's this case punish only spoken words. hardly needs repeating '(t)he guarantees speech forbid States use language within 'narrowly limited classes speech." supra, at 521—522, 1106. here fall these 'limited classes.' first place, court specifically abjured suggestion could punished obscene Roth United States, 354 476, 77 1304, 1498 (1957), its progeny. Indeed, after Cohen California, 403 15, 91 1780, 29 418 (1971), such contention regard issue would tenable. By same token, amounted 'fighting words,' Chaplinsky New Hampshire, 315 568, 62 766, 86 1031 (1942), withstand scrutiny. Even if circumstances regarded personal insult, evidence undisputed directed by group particular. Although testified offended language, also stated interpret expression being personally him, time. Thus, our decisions, State words.' Cantwell Connecticut, 310 296, 309, 60 900, 905, 84 1213 (1940); 20, 1785. 4 addition, there indicate nuisance privacy interests invaded. 'The ability government, consonant Constitution, shut discourse solely protect others hearing . dependent upon showing substantial are invaded essentially intolerable manner.' 21, 1786. prosecution made case. 5 placed primary reliance trial court's finding 'was intended incite further lawless action part likely produce action.' 413, 415 (1973). At best, however, taken counsel present moderation; worst, nothing more advocacy illegal some indefinite future This sufficient permit speech. Under 'the free press do proscribe force law violation except inciting producing imminent Brandenburg Ohio, 395 444, 447, 89 1827, 1829, 23 430 (1969). (Emphasis added.) See U.S., 4, S.Ct., 895. Since uncontroverted showed persons, cannot advocating, normal sense, action. And since rational inference import produce, disorder, those ground 'a 'tendency lead violence." N.E.2d, 415. 6 Accordingly, motion proceed forma pauperis granted judgment reversed. 7 Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 8 Court's per curiam opinion rendered today aptly demonstrates difficulties inherent substituting different complex factual inferences reached below. me has basis action, I dissent. 9 noted outset tried de novo set facts, and, therefore, record perhaps unusually colorless devoid life. Nevertheless, certain facts clearly established. during conducted University May 1970. size vigor require summoning police, both Sheriff's Department Bloomington Police asked help university officials police remove blocking doorways building. time arrived, 'approximately 200—300 persons' assembled 10 eventually cleared demonstrators, but, process, two students unnoticed demonstrators. As stipulation notes, '(i)n apparent response arrests, about 100—150 persons gathered went Avenue front Bryan Hall patrol car arrestees been placed.' contrast majority's somewhat antiseptic description massing demonstration,' demonstrators' presence 'course demonstration' but reasonably construed attempt intimidate impede arresting officers. Furthermore, 'did directions' street. found necessary disperse directly path. Only point move curbs. 11 contains declaration fact: Sheriff Thrasher appellant, Hess, conduct. remainder merely summarizes testimony, particularly testimony Thrasher, female (both University) crowd, Dr. Owen Thomas, professor English university. 'established' emerge summaries 'Hess eastern curb Avenue' said, court, (or again).' majority correctly observes, statements 'that street,' group.' 12 makes much 'uncontroverted evidence,' am unable find anywhere explanation why must believed. Surely sentence again)' susceptible characterization exhortation, while crowd. opinions defense proof contrary, perfectly reject so desired. Perhaps, seem suggest, simply expressing views world large, surely explanation. 13 places great emphasis appellant's 'later,' even suggesting 'could moderation.' continues: '(A)t time.' From observation, somehow concludes towards But whatever theoretical interpretations may remark, possible constructions encompass less continuing against harassed police. out hand unexplained preference acceptable alternatives. 14 simple result interpreted differently doing so, believe exceeded proper scope review. Rather considering 'evidence' light most favorable appellee resolving credibility questions many cases have required,* instead fashioned own version paper record, 'unconstroverted measure conjecture. traditional function appellate wise authority 'Whoever shall act boisterous manner disturb peace quiet neighborhood family, unusual noise, tumultuous offensive behavior, threatening, traducing, quarreling, challenging fight fighting, deemed guilty conduct, fined sum exceeding five hundred dollars ($500) added imprisonment exceed eighty (180) days.' Ind.Code 35—27—2—1, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 10—1510 (Supp.1972). failed preserve state courts. quash affidavit grounds asserting Court. points that, appeal received again court. refusal asserted error memorandum support pressed contentions. resolved actions arguments appeal. * See, e.g., Glasser 60, 80, 457, 469, 680 (1942).

Category: 2