COHEN v. CALIFORNIA
Supreme Court Cases
403 U.S. 15 (1971)
Related Cases
MATAL v. TAM
Decided:
WOOD v. MOSS
Decided:
Did the Secret Service unconstitutionally discriminate against protestors when asking one group to leave while allowing another to stay?
ALBERT SNYDER, PETITIONER v. FRED W. PHELPS, SR., et al.
Decided:
Whether protests can be held liable in court for inflicting intentional emotional distress when picketing a funeral with hyperbolic signs, some of which are directed at the deceased.
DEBORAH MORSE, et al. v. JOSEPH FREDERICK
Decided:
Whether the First Amendment allows public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages that allegedly promote the use of illegal substances at so-called school-sponsored events. Whether the Ninth Circuit departed from established principles of qualified immunity in holding that a public high school principal was liable in a damages lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. _ 1983 when, pursuant to the school districts policy against displaying messages promoting illegal substances, she disciplined a student for displaying a large banner with a slang marijuana reference at a school-sponsored, faculty-supervised event.
VIRGINIA v. BARRY ELTON BLACK, RICHARD J. ELLIOTT, AND JONATHAN O'MARA
Decided:
Whether a statute banning cross-burning with the intent to intimidate violates the First Amendment.
UNITED STATES, et al. v. PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC.
Decided:
Whether a federal law requiring cable operators to "fully scramble" indecent and sexually explicit programming on adult stations violate the First Amendment.
JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al.
Decided:
Whether the provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that prohibit the transmission of indecent and patently offensive materials to minors over the Internet violate the First Amendment.
DENVER AREA EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSORTIUM, INC., et al. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al.
Decided:
Whether the government may constitutionally (1) permit cable operators to refuse to carry indecent material on leased local access channels, (2) require cable operators that choose to carry indecent local access programming to place such programming on a separate channel and to block the channel until the subscriber requests unblocking, and (3) permit cable operators to refuse to carry indecent programming on local public, educational, and governmental channels.
JOHN J. HURLEY AND SOUTH BOSTON ALLIED WAR VETERANS COUNCIL v. IRISH-AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL GROUP OF BOSTON, ETC., et al.
Decided:
Whether the court-mandated inclusion of the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc. (GLIB) in Boston鈥檚 1993 St. Patrick鈥檚 Day parade violated the First Amendment rights of the private group, the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, that the city of Boston authorized to organize the parade.
R.A.V. v. CITY OF ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA
Decided:
Whether an ordinance punishing such action that 鈥渁rouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender鈥 violates the First Amendment.
UNITED STATES v. SHAWN D. EICHMAN, DAVID GERALD BLALOCK AND SCOTT W. TYLER
Decided:
Whether Appellees' prosecution for burning a United States flag in violation of the Flag Protection Act of 1989 is consistent with the First Amendment.
SABLE COMMUNICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al.
Decided:
Whether a California law banning indecent as well as obscene interstate commercial telephone messages violated the First Amendment's free speech guarantee
TEXAS v. JOHNSON
Decided:
Whether Gregory Lee Johnson's conviction under a Texas law for publicly burning an American flag in protest violates the First Amendment.
BOOS v. BARRY
Decided:
Whether a law outlawing signs within 500 feet of a foreign embassy tending to bring the foreign government into "public odium " or "public disrepute" and gatherings that refuse to disperse violates the First Amendment.
CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS v. HILL
Decided:
UNITED STATES v. ALBERTINI
Decided:
CLARK, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, et al. v. COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE et al.
Decided:
Whether the denial of a permit to protestors requesting to camp out in Washington D.C. parks, according to Park Service regulations, violated the protestors' First Amendment rights.
CAREY, STATE'S ATTORNEY OF COOK COUNTY v. BROWN et al.
Decided:
Whether a state statute that bars picketing of residences or dwellings, but exempts from its prohibition "the peaceful picketing of a place of employment involved in a labor dispute" violates the First Amendment because it is not content-neutral.
GIVHAN v. WESTERN LINE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.
Decided:
Whether a public employee forfeits his or her 1st Amendment protection against governmental abridgment of freedom of speech when he arranges to communicate privately with his employer rather than to express his views publicly.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION et al.
Decided:
Whether a broadcast of patently offensive words dealing with sex and excretion may be regulated because of its content.
OHRALIK v. OHIO STATE BAR ASSN.
Decided:
Whether the Bar, acting with state authorization, constitutionally may discipline a lawyer for soliciting clients in person, for pecuniary gain, under circumstances likely to pose dangers that the State has a right to prevent.
ERZNOZNIK v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
Decided:
Whether a Florida ordinance making it a public nuisance and a punishable offense for a drive-in movie theater to exhibit films containing nudity, when the screen is visible from a public street or place, violates the First Amendment guarantee to freedom of speech and expression.
LEHMAN v. CITY OF SHAKER HEIGHTS et al.
Decided:
Whether a city-owned placard on the side of a city bus, which has been opened for commericial advertising use but not political advertising, is a public forum.
SPENCE v. WASHINGTON
Decided:
Whether a conviction for affixing a peace symbol to a United States flag under a state statute prohibiting flag desecration violates the First Amendment.
SMITH, SHERIFF v. GOGUEN
Decided:
LEWIS v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS
Decided:
HESS v. INDIANA
Decided:
Whether a state may punish speech that is not part of 鈥渘arrowly limited classes of speech鈥 outside First Amendment protection (such as incitement, obscenity, or fighting words), and whether advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future period qualifies as incitement.
NORWELL v. CITY OF CINCINNATI
Decided:
PLUMMER v. CITY OF COLUMBUS
Decided:
GRAYNED v. CITY OF ROCKFORD
Decided:
Whether the city鈥檚 鈥渁nti-picketing鈥 ordinance and 鈥渁nti-noise鈥 ordinance violated the First Amendment.
POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al. v. MOSLEY
Decided:
Does a Chicago city ordinance which bans non-union picketing within 150 feet of a school building violate both the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
COLTEN v. KENTUCKY
Decided:
GOODING, WARDEN v. WILSON
Decided:
Whether a Georgia criminal statute prohibiting 鈥渙pprobrious words or abusive language, tending to cause a breach of the peace鈥 violates the First Amendment.
COATES et al. v. CITY OF CINCINNATI
Decided:
RADICH v. NEW YORK
Decided:
SCHACHT v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
ROWAN, DBA AMERICAN BOOK SERVICE, et al. v. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT et al.
Decided:
Whether a statute under which an individual can require a mailer to stop all future mailings that the person "believes to be erotically arousing or sexually provocative" violates the mailer's rights of free speech and due process.
BACHELLAR et al. v. MARYLAND
Decided:
COWGILL v. CALIFORNIA
Decided:
STREET v. NEW YORK
Decided:
Whether a New York statute that made it illegal to "publicly [to] mutilate, deface, defile, or defy, trample upon, or cast contempt upon either by words or act [any flag of the United States]" violates the First Amendment.
SHUTTLESWORTH v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
Decided:
Whether a Birmingham city ordinance, which gave public officials the unbridled authority to issue or withhold parade permits without reference to the legitimate regulation of public streets and sidewalks, unconstitutionally abridged the petitioner鈥檚 First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
GREGORY et al. v. CITY OF CHICAGO
Decided:
TINKER et al. v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.
Decided:
Whether the wearing of armbands by public school students as a form of symbolic speech is protected by the First Amendment.
UNITED STATES v. O'BRIEN
Decided:
Whether burning a draft card as part of an anti-war protest is symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.
EPTON v. NEW YORK
Decided:
WALKER et al. v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
Decided:
Must a protester, when faced with an injunction enforcing a facially unconstitutional ordinance, engage in an orderly judicial review of that injunction before disobeying it?
TURNER et al. v. NEW YORK
Decided:
ADDERLEY et al. v. FLORIDA
Decided:
Whether 1st and 14th Amendment freedoms give students the right to engage in peaceful protests on jailhouse grounds.
BROWN et al. v. LOUISIANA
Decided:
Whether a breach of the peace conviction arising out of a peaceful sit-in in a segregated library infringed upon the petitioners First Amendment free speech, assembly, and petition rights.
SHUTTLESWORTH v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
Decided:
COX v. LOUISIANA
Decided:
Do statutory "disturbance of the peace" and "obstruction of public passageways" convictions, for a peaceable demonstration that contains speech that may potentially incite violence, infringe on a demonstrator's First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly?
COX v. LOUISIANA
Decided:
Do statutory "disturbance of the peace" and "obstruction of public passageways" convictions, for a peaceable demonstration that contains speech that may potentially incite violence, infringe on a demonstrator's First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly?
HENRY et al. v. CITY OF ROCK HILL
Decided:
FIELDS et al. v. CITY OF FAIRFIELD.
Decided:
FIELDS et al. v. SOUTH CAROLINA
Decided:
EDWARDS et al. v. SOUTH CAROLINA
Decided:
Whether the First Amendment was violated when civil rights protestors, marching in front of the state house, were arrested after refusing to disperse when a crowd gathered.
GARNER v. LOUISIANA
Decided:
BREARD v. ALEXANDRIA
Decided:
Whether a "Green River Ordiance" which bans the soliciting of individuals on their property without their consent violates the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment freedom of speech rights of magazine solicitors.
KUNZ v. NEW YORK
Decided:
Whether a city ordinance which prescribes no appropriate standard for administrative action and gives an administrative official discretionary power to control in advance the right of citizens to speak on religious matters on the city streets is invalid under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
FEINER v. NEW YORK
Decided:
Whether the police can charge a speaker with disorderly conduct for continuing to speak to a restless and hostile crowd.
TERMINIELLO v. CHICAGO
Decided:
Does the First Amendment protect people鈥檚 right to say things that make other people so angry that it may lead them to cause unrest?
KOVACS v. COOPER, JUDGE
Decided:
Whether a municipal ban on the use of any sound system emitting "loud and raucous" noises on public streets violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
CHAPLINSKY v. NEW HAMPSHIRE
Decided:
Does the New Hampshire statute violate Chaplinsky's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights?