The Exclusive Touch. We will be closed November 8th 1. Zeta Phi Beta SE regional conference in Hilton Head, SC. Cohen v. California Wikipedia. Cohen v. California. Argued February 2. Decided June 7, 1. Full case name. Paul Robert Cohen, Appellant v. State of California. Citations. 40. 3 U. S. 1. 5 more. Prior history. Defendant convicted, Los Angeles Municipal Court affirmed, 8. Cal. Rptr. 5. 03 Cal. Ct. App. 1. 96. 9 rehearing denied, Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District 1. Supreme Court of California, 1. Subsequent history. Rehearing denied, 4. U. S. 8. 76 1. 97. N.761110005_mbe4.jpg' alt='How To Put A Patch On A Letter Jacket' title='How To Put A Patch On A Letter Jacket' />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. DA5Qzzgajo/maxresdefault.jpg' alt='How To Put A Patch On A Letter Jacket' title='How To Put A Patch On A Letter Jacket' />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 partLaws applied. U. S. Const. amend. How To Put A Patch On A Letter Jacket' title='How To Put A Patch On A Letter Jacket' />I Cal. Penal Code 4. Cohen v. California, 4. U. S. 1. 5 1. 97. United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of speech. The Court overturned a mans 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. Background of the caseeditOn April 2. 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 2. He was convicted of violating section 4. California Penal Code, which prohibited maliciously and willfully disturbing the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person by offensive conduct, and sentenced to 3. 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 Courts decisioneditThe Court, by a vote of 5 4, per Justice John Marshall Harlan II, overturned the appellate courts ruling. First, Justice Harlan began by emphasizing that this case concerned speech, and not conduct, as was at issue in United States v. OBrien. Harlan then stated that any attempt by California to abridge the content of Cohens speech would be no doubt unconstitutional except in a few instances, like, for example, if California was regulating the time, place, or manner of Cohens speech independent from the content of the speech. Second, Harlan also expressed the concern of the Court that section 4. Indeed, the words offensive conduct alone cannot 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. VestNov082.jpg' alt='How To Put A Patch On A Letter Jacket' title='How To Put A Patch On A Letter Jacket' />New Hampshire, because no individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words on appellants 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. States, acting as guardians of public morality, may properly remove this offensive word from the public vocabulary. The states could not. Design decoration of letterman jacket, chenille patches, custom embroidery, jacket style description. 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. WWII Squadron Patch Insignia. Mu Webzen Game here. Photos. 19411945 A2, G1, Walt Disney, Warner Brother Studios, AAF, USMC, USN Jacket Patches. Many For Sale. Army, U. S. army, usa, patches, tabs, ssi, device, arc, 1st ID, Ist infantry division, 82nd airborne division, regiment, battalion, company, platoon, squad, artillery. An indepth, illustrated study of Woman in Blue Reading a Letter by Johannes Vermeer. 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. Absent 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 mans vulgarity is anothers lyric. Thus, Harlans arguments can be constructed in three major points First, states California cannot 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 ideasno matter how radical they may be. Blackmuns dissenteditIn a dissenting opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun, joined by Burger and Black, suggested that Cohens 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 Blackmuns dissent noted that the Supreme Court of California construed section 4. In re Bushman 1 Cal. Cal. Rptr. 3. 75 Cal, 1. Court of Appeal of Californias decision in Cohen v. California and the Supreme Court of Californias 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 States highest tribunal in Bushman. See alsoeditReferenceseditAmerican Constitutional Law Civil Rights Liberties Stephens Scheb Pg. U. S. 2. 5. 4. 03 U. S. 2. 6. 4. 03 U. S. 2. 5. 4. 03 U. S. 2. 7. 4. 03 U. S. 2. 8. Further readingeditExternal linksedit.