Speech Provoking Disorder/Unlawful Conduct

Question 1

Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire (1942)

Answer 1

Jehova’s Witness Escorted Away by Police, Fighting Words, Unprotected Categories of Speech (Obscene, Profane, Libel, Fighting Words)

Question 2

Gooding v. Wilson (1972)

Answer 2

State Statute Prohibiting Fighting Words can be Unconstitutional when Over-Inclusive, Must be Narrowly Drawn

Question 3

Rosenfeld v. New Jersey (1972)

Answer 3

New Jersey Supreme Court, Shouting Bad Words at School Board is not Fighting Words

Question 4

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)

Answer 4

Clear and Present Danger to a Substantial State Interest, Offensive Speech is Protected, Clear and Present Danger to Public Peace and Order is not Protected

Question 5

Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)

Answer 5

Priest Gives Controversial Speech, Protestors Caused Disturbances, Priest was Prosecuted Under a City Ordinance, Speech is protected unless it is likely to produce a clear and present danger of serious substantive evil (beyond inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest).

Question 6

Feiner v. New York (1951)

Answer 6

Black man makes inciting speech for civil rights and was arrested when he refused to stop. Prosecuted for breach of the peace. Normally, a heckler’s veto can’t silence a speaker, but here the police were in the right. Balancing the right to speak with concerns of incitement and the power of police to prevent a breach of the peace.

Question 7

Edwards v. South Carolina (1963)

Answer 7

Students peacefully protest for civil rights and were arrested after they refused to disperse. The state cannot criminalize peaceful expression of unpopular views.

Question 8

Cox v. Louisiana (1965)

Answer 8

Pastor got permission from police for protest, but the state prosecuted him for protesting near a courthouse to obstruct justice. The Due Process Clause prohibits prosecution when the defendant is relying on government directives.

Question 9

Cohen v. California (1971)

Answer 9

Fuck the Draft, Not Fighting Words or Obscene, People Can Avert Their Eyes (No Privacy Issue such as Sound), Fighting Words Must be Directed, Idea that Words Whose Utterance Inflict Injury is Undermined

Question 10

Kunz v. New York (1951)

Answer 10

Requiring a permit to speak on religious issues in public is unconstitutional because it gave standardless discretion to exercise prior restraint (reasonless refusal). Content Neutral Standard required for prior permit scheme.

Question 11

Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992)

Answer 11

Permit price was subject to the potential need for protection based on the content of the speech and gave standardless discretion. Unconstitutional to financially burden speech on the basis of content.

Question 12

United States v. Progressive Inc. (1979)

Answer 12

W.D. Wis., Magazine Publishes Bomb Instructions, Case Became Moot (Published Elsewhere?), No Decision

Question 13

Carter v. Commonwealth (2017)

Answer 13

State Court, Convincted of Involuntary Manslaughter, Supreme Court Refused Cert., Speech was reckless and wanton conduct causing the death of another and integral to the course of criminal conduct, so it was unprotected.