Document: 414 U.S. 2 94 S.Ct. 17 38 L.Ed.2d 3 Harold R. PLUMMERv.CITY OF COLUMBUS, OHIO. No. 72—6897. Decided Oct. 15, 1973. PER CURIAM. 1 The Court of Appeals Franklin County, Ohio, in an unreported opinion, affirmed appellant's conviction violating Columbus City Code § 2327.03, which provides: 'No person shall abuse another by using menacing, insulting, slanderous, or profane language.' Ohio Supreme Court, order, sua sponte dismissed appeal to that court 'for the reason no substantial constitutional question exists herein.' We grant leave proceed forma pauperis and reverse. On December 11, 1972, we held Gooding v. Wilson, 405 518, 92 1103, 31 408, required reversal a previous action from under 2327.03. Cason Columbus, 409 1053, 93 565, 34 507 (1972). Section 2327.03 punishes only spoken words and, as construed courts, is facially unconstitutional because not limited application 'to punish unprotected speech' but 'susceptible protected expression.' supra, U.S., at 522, S.Ct., 1106. In circumstance, erred when it found infirmity holding County ordinance might constitutionally reach conduct 'the used (appellant) are nature 'fighting words' thereby fall within limit proscribed . ..' For "(a)lthough (the ordinance) may be neither vague, overbroad, nor otherwise invalid applied charged against particular defendant, he permitted raise its vagueness overbreadth others. And if law deficient one these respects, him either, until unless satisfactory limiting construction placed on (ordinance). (ordinance), effect, stricken down face. ." Id., 521, 1105. Reversed. 4 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. BLACKMUN dissent for reasons expressed Mr. Justice BLACKMUN's dissenting opinion 534, 1112, 408 (1972), statement 5 POWELL, with whom REHNQUIST concurs, dissenting. 6 Appellant cab driver. He had female fare his who requested taken certain address. When passed this address, complained and—according trial court—the driver's response was 'a series absolutely vulgar, suggestive abhorrent, sexually-oriented statements.' 7 I would sustain stated my Rosenfeld New Jersey, 901, 906, 2479, 2481, 33 321 As therein: 8 '(A) verbal assault unwilling audience (or individual) so grossly offensive emotionally disturbing proper subject criminal proscription, whether statute denominating disorderly conduct, or, more accurately, public nuisance.' 9 certainly sufficiently explicit inform appellant passenger 'menacing insulting.' wrong character does protection First Amendment, doctrine applicable. See Model Penal Code, §§ 250.2(1)(a) (b) (Proposed Official Draft 1962); see also Williams District Columbia, 136 U.S.App.D.C. 56, 64, 419 F.2d 638, 646 (1969).

Category: 2