Chapter 6 Questions

Questions from Chapter 6

1. In the case of Paul Robert Cohen and his infamous jacket I believe that the court did the right thing by not convicting him for his message. If Cohen had verbally spoken this particular sentiment in the lobby of the Los Angeles County Courthouse I do not believe he would have been arrested and charged with a crime.
But since the reverberation of his words were not verbally expressed and allowed to dissipate immediately many believed that he posed a public nuisance and even accused him of holding his audience captive to said message.
Are we only allowed to express a minority opinion, or hold a silent protest, or ask people to stop and think about current social atrocities when there is a group? In an era when anti-war protests were taking place every minute of every day in every city why was Cohen singled out? Is it because he was a single at a time when people didn’t believe that one person could facilitate dialogue and potentially stir debate on an issue that many Americans don’t take much time to question? – Apparently, one person could make a nuisance.
I believe the Supreme Court made the right decision based on the fact that Americans are allowed to assemble to hold public protests as long as they don’t interfere with other’s ability to go about their duties and as long as it doesn’t turn violent. Cohen should have never been arrested on the basis of a message that was written on his jacket because his speech did not meet the imminent danger test and did not reach a point of incitement among his audience and he also did not engage in “fighting words” as defined by Chaplinsky.
Upon further investigation it seems as if the government was partially convicting Cohen on the basis of bad tendency (that a person may be convicted of a conspiracy to obstruct recruiting by words of persuasion – Justice Holmes citing Schenk) as it came out of the Espionage Act of 1917 which “made it illegal to encourage insubordination in the armed forces or to promote resistance to the draft”- yet masking it through the newly adopted incitement standard.
Who can say that Cohen’s jacket was worthless speech? To Cohen and his fellow anti-war supporters his speech did have social value – it was pertinent – and it did help the public by stirring debate which would lead to truth. Yet, before Cohen’s case the government viewed his speech as worthless – not because of the message but because of the language used in transmitting the message – after Cohen’s case the government changed its views in regards to explicit (foul) language by stating “that even shocking language can serve a dual communication function: the cognitive, in which ideas are expressed, and the emotive, in which deep personal emotions are expressed.”
If Cohen’s jacket was worthless speech then can’t we argue that the peace symbol was worthless speech? It advocated the same principles that Cohen believed in and stood for, it asked people to turn their backs on fighting and take up more passive methods of settling the conflict; it was definitely against the government’s agenda. It, like Cohen’s jacket, silently asked the American people to take a stand by not supporting our countries war effort, to question the draft and to seek out loopholes to keep young men out of the military.
2. “Speech is often provocative and challenging.” Justice Douglas in the decision of Terminiello
This is a case in which I did not agree with the speaker to have been brought to trial and convicted by a lower court.

While it is true that Father Terminiello did hold unpopular views in regards to Jewish people he was well within his rights to speak when invited to Chicago by a group holding his same belief system.

As I do not have both sides of the case here in this book I am not aware of any intended incitement to provocation on the Father’s or sponsoring group’s part. What is clear is that almost double the amount of protesters as listeners arrived with the explicit purpose of doing harm to the members of the Christian Veterans of America and its guest speaker. There is no other purpose in my mind for bringing weapons such as bottles, ice picks, and bricks to a completely legal gathering of individuals. Here is a case in which the police force failed to protect the speaker, (even in the face of being attacked by protestors) and instead arrested the Father citing a Chicago ordinance that states “ ’All persons who shall make, aid, countenance, or assist in making any improper noise, riot, disturbance, breach of the peace’ shall be guilty of disorderly conduct”.

Disorderly conduct? For speaking? This could never have been proven in the first place based on the fact that the protestor’s had no real knowledge of what was going to be said inside the meeting hall, they had no clue as to what materials would be presented or even if any action would be called for – they were only able to assume based on prior dealings with the group and on public reputation of the Father.

It is important to look back and ask the building which side of its walls was the glass shattered? Did the violent, pre-meditated actions of the protestor’s aid to the fervor of those inside the building – who may have feared for their own safety? It is important to know how misinformation can misguide so many.