Cohen V. California -- Precedent for Cindy

[Craig3410]

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/cohen.html

Thanks to Attytood (http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002734.html).


Just making sure everyone knows. :)

[stevedeshazer]

1. Syllabus:

Appellant was convicted of violating that part of Cal. Penal Code § 415 which prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturb the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct," for wearing a jacket bearing the words "Fuck the Draft" in a corridor of the Los Angeles Courthouse. The Court of Appeal held that "offensive conduct" means "behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace," and affirmed the conviction. Held: Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, 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. Pp. 22-26.

1 Cal. App. 3d 94, 81 Cal. Rptr. 503, reversed.

<snip>

more: at Craig3410's link

[xiamiam]

2. much less a statement of fact versus an opinion...nt

[Kagemusha]

3. Sigh. I'll say it again... the Constitution says Senate rules are its own.

And that the courts have basically no right to second guess the Senate's rules, in particular, its rules for decorum on its own grounds.

You cite a courthouse for precedent as if that precedent should be held over the head of the Senate, which has its rights guaranteed in the Constitution itself.

It's a precedent for Cindy anywhere but where she actually got removed from.

[pnwmom]

4. Kagemusha, do you know by any chance what the Senate rules say?

Do you know the Senate rules were followed? Or did Mr. Weight just make the decision to eject Cindy on his own?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.