Facts of the Case

In 1968, Paul Robert Cohen was arrested in the Los Angeles County Courthouse for wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words “F*** the Draft” to protest the Vietnam War. He was charged under a California law that prohibited “maliciously and willfully disturbing the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person by offensive conduct.” Cohen argued that the law violated his First Amendment rights, as his jacket was an expression of his political views.

Constitutional Question

Does the California law prohibiting offensive conduct violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech when applied to someone who wears clothing bearing an expletive as a form of protest?

Arguments

For Cohen:

• The phrase on the jacket was a form of symbolic speech and political expression protected by the First Amendment.
• The law was overly broad and could be used to suppress a wide range of protected speech, giving the government excessive power to control expression.
• The state cannot ban offensive speech simply because it is offensive, as doing so would undermine the core principles of free expression.

For California:

• The state has an interest in maintaining public order and preventing disturbances, and offensive speech in a public place can lead to breaches of the peace.
• The use of vulgar language in public, particularly in a courthouse, is not protected by the First Amendment and can be regulated to protect societal norms and public decency.
• The law is necessary to protect individuals from being subjected to offensive and disruptive conduct in public spaces.

The Decision

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in favor of Cohen. Justice John Marshall Harlan II, writing for the majority, held that the California law violated Cohen’s First Amendment rights. The Court emphasized several key points:

1. Content-Based Restrictions: The Court found that the state could not prohibit speech simply because it was offensive or because others might find it disturbing. The First Amendment protects not just popular or polite speech, but also speech that is provocative and challenging.
2. Expression of Ideas: The Court noted that “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric,” underscoring that the government should not be in the business of determining what language is acceptable or unacceptable in the expression of ideas.
3. No Immediate Threat: The Court rejected the state’s argument that the jacket posed a significant threat to public order, noting that no one had been incited to violence or a breach of the peace by Cohen’s actions.

The decision underscored the broad protections afforded to free speech under the First Amendment, including the right to express dissenting and unpopular views, even in offensive terms.

Significance

Cohen v. California is a landmark case that reinforced the protection of free speech under the First Amendment, particularly in the context of political expression. The ruling established that the government cannot ban speech simply because it is offensive or distasteful to some members of the public. This decision played a crucial role in defining the limits of government regulation of speech and has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the First Amendment. The case is a pivotal example of the principle that the freedom of speech extends to expressions that challenge societal norms and provoke strong reactions.