Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BattyBot (talk | contribs) at 00:43, 15 September 2013 (Talk page general fixes & other cleanup using AWB (9479)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following 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. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Background of the Case

9/14/10 I am in no way a legal scholar, and in fact was only exposed to this decision today in my Law class. Still, I believe the case details on this page are inaccurate. My reading of the footnotes of the opinion has that Cohen had worn the jacket upon entering the building and then removed it when he entered the court room, allowing the police officer to take notice and speak to the judge. My reading of this article has that Cohen did not put on the coat until after he exited the court room, which creates an important distinction in his level of protest. I'm unwilling to change anything, though, as I am in no way an authority. Dontwriteplays (talk) 18:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to be an expert to accurately read a SCOTUS opinion. Could you provide the relevant quote from the opinion, cited to page and footnote? postdlf (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I think Dontwriteplays has it right. The opinion first states that:

‘On April 26, 1968, the defendant was observed in the Los Angeles County Courthouse in the corridor outside of division 20 of the municipal court wearing a jacket bearing the words ‘Fuck the Draft’ which were plainly visible. There were women and children present in the corridor. The defendant was arrested. The defendant testified that he wore the jacket knowing that the words were on the jacket as a means of informing the public of the depth of his feelings against the Vietnam War and the draft.

— John Marshall Harlan, Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 16 (1971)

Footnote 3 then states:

It is illuminating to note what transpired when Cohen entered a courtroom in the building. He removed his jacket and stood with it folded over his arm. Meanwhile, a policeman sent the presiding judge a note suggesting that Cohen be held in contempt of court. The judge declined to do so and Cohen was arrested by the officer only after he emerged from the courtroom.

— John Marshall Harlan, Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 19 n. 3 (1971)

Based on all this, my understanding is that Cohen wore the jacket into the courthouse, was observed in the corridor, then removed the jacket and entered the courtroom. A police officer who had seen (or heard about) Cohen's inflammatory jacket asked the judge to hold Cohen in contempt and, when that failed, arrested him when he left.--Maikul (talk) 22:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Picture

I think this article would benefit from a picture of the jacket. I have personally seen such a picture but I am having a hard time finding it online. Perhaps another editor here would be able to find it. 98.165.151.225 (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Freedom of speech articles
• High-importance Freedom of speech articles
• Start-Class U.S. Supreme Court articles
• High-importance U.S. Supreme Court articles
• WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases articles
• Start-Class law articles
• Unknown-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles