Peter Protestor Case Summary

1. The case for Peter Protestor could go either way. Peter Protestor could be charged with incitement because the prosecution could make the argument that there was a direct correlation between Peter’s chants and the actions of the Antifa members. Peter chanted, ““Throw Arpaio in jail! Down with Trump! Fuck the fucking fuckers! Let’s show them we mean business!” The Antifa members in return began to throw bricks through car windows. In order to prove incitement, which is not protected by the First Amendment, the prosecution must prove the Incitement Test. The Incitement Test stems from two cases, Hess v. Indiana and Bradenburg v. Ohio, and rules that the court must prove that the speech directly enticed violence and that the speech was likely to produce the content of the action that correlated. Because Peter did not directly state what his intent was, it’s unclear and is up to the court’s discretion. It’s also unclear on if his speech warranted the brick throwing. The prosecution could make the argument that Peter enticed the crowd, but under the Incitement Test, the final verdict would be under the court’s discretion. If the test was not proved, then Peter’s speech would be protected under the First Amendment.

2. …show more content…
In order for Peter to be charged with disturbing the peace with his foul language, you would have to determine if his speech was considered obscene. To determine this, you would use the Supreme Court case of Cohen v. California. Under Cohen v. California, Peter’s speech qualifies as only indecent – which is still protected by the First Amendment. “Fuck the fucking fuckers” is not a direct threat to anyone, and although the word choice may be deemed obscene by members of the public, under Cohen v. California, it would be ruled indecent because his speech did not provoke the disturbing of the peace, and therefore would still be protected under the First