Chapter five BOOK notes
Chapter five BOOK notes COM 250
Popular in Freedom of Expression and Communication Ethics
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Communication Studies
This 0 page Study Guide was uploaded by Natalie Land on Wednesday November 4, 2015. The Study Guide belongs to COM 250 at University of Miami taught by Samuel Terilli in Fall 2015. Since its upload, it has received 57 views. For similar materials see Freedom of Expression and Communication Ethics in Communication Studies at University of Miami.
Reviews for Chapter five BOOK notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 11/04/15
Chapter Five Fighting Words 0 1942 Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 0 speci c kind of categorization o ghting words when we were little we were sometimes admonished by our parents the words they used promoted a violent reaction 0 ghting words potential of provoking a ght 0 Back in History 0 British often justi ed restrictions on speech using the idea that their could be a risk of disrupting the peace with certain speech 0 American law also often punished speech that disrupted the peace and cuased disorderly conduct IE in Tennessee ruled that obscene and vulgar words were punishable because they could cause violence and corruption of social morals 0 These words in general were punished words but for decades there wasn t one theory as to why they were punished words it was all different theories based on different cases 0 Finally theories more concrete ones arose from the Chaplisnky v New Hampshire Case Categorical Expression and Fighting Word Document 0 In 1941 two questions arose Coud words that promote violence be punished under the amendment And if so what criteria should be used to determine if the words have that tendency to promote violence They wanted to prevent violence but without hurting the freedom of expression and communication in general 0 Chaplinsky V New Hampshire When 1942 Who Chaplinsky jehovah s Witness What He was preaching and distributing literal on a street and the police removed him after complaints by other people they wanted to avoid disturbing the peace they removed him before much peace was disturbed Chaplinsky argued and released a verbal fulmination Result In Chaplinsky the judge Murphy said that there can be exceptions to the fourteenth amendment under which speech should and isn t protected 0 IE words by which their very utterance in icts injury or damage peace immediately Result its not what the person addressed considered to be offensive is whats offensive but rather the average man of common intelligence thinks would cause the average man to ght is what should be considered offensive not the lateral Justice Murphy39s Conclusion ghting words are not protected by the rst amendment 0 Fighting words in general have no value no meaning and no place in the market place of ideas because they aren39t ideas 0 Also to limit expression on behavior that threated peace including ght words these ght words cause an IMMEDIATE breach of peace 0 Fighting Words De nition Re ned o Terminello v Chicago Who Father Terminello When 1949 What in an auditorium he lashed out atJews African americans and outside the hall angry people began protesting and throwing rocks and windows broken etc o Terminello was charged for disrupting the peace the Chicago court said that he was convicted under speech that caused public to be angry Result Was appealed to court which then ruled this conviction unconstitutional They said words cant be punished just because their content creates personal emotional distress o The words must induce reaction greater than annoyance or unrest The question left to answer was 0 Should ght words be punished on content meaning or context situation 0 De nition Narrowed 0 Two decades pass since court revisits the whole issue with ght words 0 Cohen V California When during world in Vietnam What Cohen was in courthouse corridor wearing a jacket that said fuck the draft however no one not even the defendant was involved or caused violence 0 He was convicted by California Result they used contextual analysis and ruled for protecting speech Harlan judge said the emotive force is the most essential element in ght words O o The court said they cant punish him on content of message as long as no intent of disobedience or disruption to the draft is shown Fighting words doctrine word in question produces different reaction depending on audience 0 States can ban ghting words that ordinary citizens would consider the words to provoke violence Emotive content for the rst time here in Cohen v California ghting words were seen to have value 0 This challenges chaplinsky which said that words such as fascist and racketer had no value Cohen and Free Speech cohen case also gave credit to the idea that Free speech protects responsible criticism as well as freedom to speak foolishly without moderation Its good to have verbal chaos it shows a sign of strength 0 In the results of this case it is determined that there is no such thing as a quotbadquot idea 0 With the cohen case there was a lot of free speech and defense for speech unlike the other cases which limited it Gooden v Wilson 0 O O Rejects idea of average person test for ghting words Who Jonny What was arrested for picketing along with other protestors at an army induction center Was asked to leave but he refused and assaulted and batteried two cops screaming I will kill you Convicted under Georgia Result case was appealed and sent to court which then said that Georgia was violating the rst amendment because It was so overbroad it was a statute that included speech already protected by rst amendment Brennan re ned Chaplinsky starting from this case the court would no longer look at what the common average man would think to be ghting words but what the man addressed in a speci c situation would consider ghting word 0 Rather evaluate ghting words situation Mother Fuckers Cases 0 They are called like this because they were all cases where people were convicted for using this word 0 Rosenfeld v New Jersey Who attended and addressed a public school board meeting and used words motherfucker What was tried and convicted under a new jersey law alleging that any person who utters a loud and profane or indecent language in any public street or other public place is a disorderly person Result 0 Brown Appellant spoke to a large group of men and women gathered at University of Tulsa Chapel He refered to some police as motherfucking fascist cops Was convicted under Oklahoma statute prohibiting obscene language 0 Lewis police had been in the process of arresting the appellant s son on other grounds and lewis tried to intervine calling police of cers motherfuckers o The court simply vacated in all three cases the conviction and retured the case to the lower court 0 This had effects on the coming situations Especially in Lewis words may or may not be considered ghting words depending on the situation Contextual framework of ghting words was the decision 0 The court continued to believe that ghting words should be a categorical exception to the rst amendment 0 The RAV decision 0 When 1991 0 Who The city of st paul had enacted the Bias motivated crime ordinance This outlawed the use of symbols causing anger alarm or resentment based on factors such as race religion or gender Rav burned a cross inside the yard of an African American family But Rav argued that he wasn t doing anything illegal One thing raised by this case is the idea of whether a symbol of racist oppression should be protected by the constitution 0 As a result The Rav case had an effect on the Categorical Exceptions and Fighting words Doctrine o It showed in the RAV majority decision that certain categories of expression are not protected by the rst amendment Scalia said 0 A limited categorical approach has remained an important part of our rst amendment 0 One thing discussed was that ghting words in general and categorical exceptions do have communicative value you cannot say that they are not speech because they are 0 They are punished because they are not essential to express any idea you don t need them In Cohen the individual chooses whether the word is necessary for his or her message but in RAV the government declares whether the word is necessary or not to express the idea States can restrict certain words but they cant do so based on content rather context 0
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'