| Cohen v. California | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued February 22, 1971 Decided June 7, 1971 | |
| Full case name | Paul Robert Cohen, Appellant v. State of California |
| Citations | 403 U.S. 15 (more) 91 S. Ct. 1780; 29 L.2d 284; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 32 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant convicted, Los Angeles Municipal Court; affirmed, 81 Cal. Rptr. 503 (Cal. Ct. App. 1969); rehearing denied, Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District 11-13-69; review denied, Supreme Court of California, 12-17-69 |
| Subsequent | Rehearing denied, 404 U.S. 876 (1971). |
| Holding | |
| The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, prohibits states from making the public display of a single four-letter expletive a criminal offense, without a more specific and compelling reason than a general tendency to disturb the peace. The First Amendment places a heavy burden on the justification of prior restraint in order to curtail free speech. Court of Appeal of California reversed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Harlan, joined by Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall |
| Dissent | Blackmun, joined by Burger, Black; White (in part) |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amends. I, XIV; Cal. Penal Code § 415 | |
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prevented the conviction of Paul Robert Cohen for the crime of disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket displaying "Fuck the Draft" in the public corridors of a California courthouse.
The Court ultimately found that displaying a mere four-letter word was not sufficient justification for allowing states to restrict free speech and that free speech can be restricted only under severe circumstances beyond offensiveness. The ruling set a precedent used in future cases concerning the power of states to regulate free speech in order to maintain public civility.
The Court describes free expression as a "powerful medicine" in such pluralistic society like the United States. It is intended to "remove government restraints" from public discussion to "produce a more capable citizenry" and preserve individual choices which is an imperative for "our political system."