Misplaced Pages

Talk:Cohen v. California

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shalichan (talk | contribs) at 15:04, 2 November 2018 (Added potential list of references on this topic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:04, 2 November 2018 by Shalichan (talk | contribs) (Added potential list of references on this topic)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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.
Article policies
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.
WikiProject iconFreedom of speech High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconHuman rights High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconJournalism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconLaw High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconMedia High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Media To-do List:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPolitics High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconU.S. Supreme Court cases High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the 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)

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:

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)

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)

  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.
Categories: