Freedom Of Speech - Chapter 6

Front 1

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Back 1

(1) Court makes distinction between speech that is valuable and speech that is not valuable (worthless)
(2) Fighting words:
A. Insult sense of values directly (offensive speech)
B. Speech that is likely to incite immediate violence (reaction from audience) -- words so offensive that the audience is likely to revolt against the speaker.

Front 2

Cohen v. California

Back 2

Fighting words is only defined by #2 from Chaplinsky v. New Hampsire (immediate breach of peace)

Front 3

Fighting words v. Incitement

Back 3

Incitement is a concern where someone is going to listen to what you're saying, and you're going to do what I tell you to do, wheras fighting words is where a person hits you because of your speech

Front 4

Fighting words

Back 4

After Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire fighting words had two parts:
(1) Words that "inflict injury" on the sensibilities of others (valuable v. worthless speech)
(2) Words that "tend to incite an immediate breach of peace"

After (1972) two cases; Cohen v. California and Gooding v. Wilson changed fighting words to haveo ne part:
(1) Words spoken individually in a face-to-face confrontation
(2) Words that are likely to incite an immediate breach of peace

Front 5

Heckler's Veto

Back 5

Audience should not be given right to take speakers right away. Agreement that the court can limite speech/constitutional rights if the audience disagree so vehemently they threaten the peace.
Dissent argument (Justice Black): The audience who reacts violently should be stopped, not the speaker -- shouldn't be allowed viewpoint discrimination

Front 6

R.A.V. v. St. Paul

Back 6

White supremacy group burned a cross in the yard of an African-American family. Decision says that cross burning is legal but judges disagree on why.

- Due process laws were vague
- State cannot make distinction between speech/action it likes and doesn't like (proves why cross burning is okay)
- Viewpoint Consideration: Court cannot discriminate against minority viewpoints (i.e. racist viewpoint) (sometimes cross-burning is okay, and sometimes it's not okay)