Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:04, 14 February 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cohen v. California article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Freedom of speech High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Journalism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Media High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. U.S. Supreme Court cases High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shalichan (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Weinshel, Erujhaider.

Further reading

I've added Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties to the Further reading section. — Cirt (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Can we get a photo of the jacket? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

FA-Class U.S. Supreme Court articles

From Category:FA-Class U.S. Supreme Court articles:

1. Afroyim v. Rusk
2. Ex parte Crow Dog
3. Menominee Tribe v. United States
4. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
5. United States v. Lara
6. United States v. Wong Kim Ark
7. Washington v. Texas

These might be good models for a quality improvement project for this article. — Cirt (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cohen v. California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725074924/http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Cohen_v_CA to http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=Cohen_v_CA

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

This article only had 6 references, which was not nearly enough. The references were also mainly citing the government record of the case, so it did not provide more than one view of the case.AstroFan2017 (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, AstroFan2017. I've placed a template ({{primary sources}}) at the top of the article which indicates that it needs more secondary sources. — PinkAmpers& 03:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Does https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/make-no-law/2018/11/the-f-bomb/ qualify as a secondary source? The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Potential References

Here's a list of potential references I'd like to add to this article.

• • Civilizing Public Discourse: An Essay on Professor Bickel, Justice Harlan, and the Enduring Significance of Cohen v. California - DA Farber (in Duke Law Journal)
  • A Look Back at Cohen v. California - William Cohen (in UCLA Law Review)
  • Looking Back at Cohen v. California: A 40 Year Retrospective from Inside the Court - Thomas Krattenmaker (in William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal)

Shalichan (talk)

References

1. A., Farber, Daniel (1980). "Civilizing Public Discourse: An Essay on Professor Bickel, Justice Harlan, and the Enduring Significance of Cohen v. California". Duke Law Journal. 1980.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
2. Cohen, William (1987). "A Look Back at Cohen v California". UCLA Law Rev. 34: 1595.
3. Krattenmaker, Thomas (2012). "Looking Back at Cohen v. California: A 40 Year Retrospective from Inside the Court". Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 20: 651.

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Freedom of speech articles
• High-importance Freedom of speech articles
• Start-Class Human rights articles
• High-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• Start-Class Journalism articles
• High-importance Journalism articles
• WikiProject Journalism articles
• Start-Class law articles
• High-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• Start-Class Media articles
• High-importance Media articles
• WikiProject Media articles
• Start-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Start-Class U.S. Supreme Court articles
• High-importance U.S. Supreme Court articles
• WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases articles