You think those guys would pay homage to you if they won?
Syllabus Appellant was convicted of violating that part of Cal. [p16] Appellant Paul Robert Cohen was convicted in the Los Angeles Municipal Court of violating that part of California Penal Code § 415 which prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . Because that is the only arguably sustainable rationale for the conviction here at issue, the judgment below must be [p27] The statute provides in full: Every person who maliciously and willfully disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person, by loud or unusual noise, or by tumultuous or offensive conduct, or threatening, traducing, quarreling, challenging to fight, or fighting, or who, on the public streets of any unincorporated town, or upon the public highways in such unincorporated town, run any horse race, either for a wager or for amusement, or fire any gun or pistol in such unincorporated town, or use any vulgar, profane, or indecent language within the presence or hearing of women or children, in a loud and boisterous manner, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction by any Court of competent jurisdiction shall be punished by fine not exceeding two hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the County Jail for not more than ninety days, or by both fine and imprisonment, or either, at the discretion of the Court. be guilty of disturbing the peace through "offensive" conduct [within the meaning of § 415] if, by his actions, he willfully and maliciously incites others to violence or engages in conduct likely to incite others to violence.
Additionally, we cannot overlook the fact, because it [p26] is well illustrated by the episode involved here, that much linguistic expression serves a dual communicative function: it conveys not only ideas capable of relatively precise, detached explication, but otherwise inexpressible emotions as well. Finally, and in the same vein, we cannot indulge the facile assumption that one can forbid particular words without also running a substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process.
At least so long as there is no showing of an intent to incite disobedience to or disruption of the draft, Cohen could not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, be punished for asserting the evident position on the inutility or immorality of the draft his jacket reflected. In this vein, too, however, we think it important to note that several issues typically associated with such problems are not presented here. While the four-letter word displayed by Cohen in relation to the draft is not uncommonly employed in a personally provocative fashion, in this instance it was clearly not "directed to the person of the hearer." 310 U. Nor do we have here an instance of the exercise of the State's police power to prevent a speaker from intentionally provoking a given group to hostile reaction. Of course, the mere presumed presence of unwitting listeners or viewers does not serve automatically to justify curtailing all speech capable of giving offense. Any broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to silence dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections.
Further, the State certainly lacks power to punish Cohen for the underlying content of the message the inscription conveyed. This does not end the inquiry, of course, for the First and Fourteenth Amendments have never been thought to give absolute protection to every individual to speak whenever or wherever he pleases, or to use any form of address in any circumstances that he chooses. No individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words on appellant's jacket as a direct personal insult. [p21] Finally, in arguments before this Court, much has been made of the claim that Cohen's distasteful mode of expression was thrust upon unwilling or unsuspecting viewers, and that the State might therefore legitimately act as it did in order to protect the sensitive from otherwise unavoidable exposure to appellant's crude form of protest. The ability of government, consonant with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in other words, dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner.
Meanwhile, a policeman sent the presiding judge a note suggesting that Cohen be held in contempt of court. In fact, other portions of the same statute do make some such distinctions. by loud or unusual noise" and using "vulgar, profane, or indecent language within the presence or hearing of women or children, in a loud and boisterous manner." This second-quoted provision in particular serves to put the actor on much fairer notice as to what is prohibited. Justice Murphy, a known champion of First Amendment freedoms, wrote for a unanimous bench.
The judge declined to do so, and Cohen was arrested by the officer only after he emerged from the courtroom. For example, the statute also prohibits disturbing "the peace or quiet . It also buttresses our view that the "offensive conduct" portion, as construed and applied in this case, cannot legitimately be justified in this Court as designed or intended to make fine distinctions between differently situated recipients. Further, the case appears to me to be well within the sphere of 315 U. As a consequence, this Court's agonizing over First Amendment values seems misplaced and unnecessary. I am not at all certain that the California Court of Appeal's construction of § 415 is now the authoritative California construction.
And in the new issue of (on stands Friday), Drake makes it very clear he thought the message was unnecessary. Take your W, and if you feel you didn't deserve it, go get better — make better music,'" he tells contributing editor Jonah Weiner. Whether people wanna say it's racial, or whether it's just the fact that he tapped into something we can't tap into. Own your shit." See the 25 best & worst moments from this year's Grammys And in the end, if Macklemore was going to start doling out apologies, he should have reached out to more nominees, Drake says.