Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
6 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
|
(1) Court makes distinction between speech that is valuable and speech that is not valuable (worthless)
(2) Fighting words: A. Insult sense of values directly (offensive speech) B. Speech that is likely to incite immediate violence (reaction from audience) -- words so offensive that the audience is likely to revolt against the speaker. |
|
Cohen v. California
|
Fighting words is only defined by #2 from Chaplinsky v. New Hampsire (immediate breach of peace)
|
|
Fighting words v. Incitement
|
Incitement is a concern where someone is going to listen to what you're saying, and you're going to do what I tell you to do, wheras fighting words is where a person hits you because of your speech
|
|
Fighting words
|
After Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire fighting words had two parts:
(1) Words that "inflict injury" on the sensibilities of others (valuable v. worthless speech) (2) Words that "tend to incite an immediate breach of peace" After (1972) two cases; Cohen v. California and Gooding v. Wilson changed fighting words to haveo ne part: (1) Words spoken individually in a face-to-face confrontation (2) Words that are likely to incite an immediate breach of peace |
|
Heckler's Veto
|
Audience should not be given right to take speakers right away. Agreement that the court can limite speech/constitutional rights if the audience disagree so vehemently they threaten the peace.
Dissent argument (Justice Black): The audience who reacts violently should be stopped, not the speaker -- shouldn't be allowed viewpoint discrimination |
|
R.A.V. v. St. Paul
|
White supremacy group burned a cross in the yard of an African-American family. Decision says that cross burning is legal but judges disagree on why.
- Due process laws were vague - State cannot make distinction between speech/action it likes and doesn't like (proves why cross burning is okay) - Viewpoint Consideration: Court cannot discriminate against minority viewpoints (i.e. racist viewpoint) (sometimes cross-burning is okay, and sometimes it's not okay) |