97 replies to this topic

[thefirstimmortal]

....just celebrate your freedom to say Fuck fuck fuck..


When power leads man toward arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the area of man’s concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses-for art establishes the basic human truth that must serve as the touchstone of our judgment.” Poetry often celebrates the anguish of creation, and the role of conscience in a sometimes dehumanized modern world.

We celebrate the nonconformist. If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. We also honor those with moral courage. We celebrate the creative spirit, which recognized or not, has shaped our civilization.

And today I Celebrate the musical genius of Rap Star artist Eminem, who during the middle of the war had the courage to question power and asked life's difficult questions on the possibility that we could have another draft. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.


Nothing moves me more than a groove that suits me
Nothing suits me more than a groove that boosts me
Nothing boosts me more or suites me beautifully
There's nothing you can do to me, stab me, shoot me
Psychotic hypnotic product I gotta take an antibiotic
Ain't nobody hotter and so on and yada yada
Gotta talk alot of hum-hei-la-da-da-der
Oochie walla-walla-mmm-de-da-da but you gotta gotta
Keep moving there's more music to make
Keep making new shit, produce hits to break
The monotony what's gotten into me?
On your knees, got you under siege

Yeh you laugh til your motherfucking ass gets drafted
When you're in bed here thinking the draft cant happen
'Til you fuck around getting anthrax napkin
Inside a package wrapped in saranrap wrapping
Open the plastic, and then you stand back gasping
Fucking assassins hijacking anthrax crashing
All this terror, America demands action
Next thing you know, you've got uncle sam's ass asking
To join our army, or what you do for their navy
You just a baby getting recruited at 18
You're on a plane now eating their food and their baked beans
I'm 28, they 'gon take you 'fore they take me
Crazy insane or insane crazy?
When I say Hussein, you say Shady!

From the Album "The Eminem Show", title track, Square Dance.

[thefirstimmortal]

A 19-year-old department store worker expressed his opposition to the Vietnam War by wearing a jacket emblazoned with "FUCK THE DRAFT. STOP THE WAR" The young man, Paul Cohen, was charged under a California statute that prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturbing the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or person by offensive conduct." Cohen was found guilty and sentenced to 30 days in jail.

[thefirstimmortal]

Question Presented

Did California's statute, prohibiting the display of offensive messages such as "Fuck the Draft," violate freedom of expression as protected by the First Amendment?

[thefirstimmortal]

Conclusion

Yes. In an opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the Court reasoned that the expletive, while provocative, was not directed toward anyone, besides, there was no evidence that people in substantial numbers would be provoked into some kind of physical action by the words on his jacket. Harlan recognized that "one man's vulgarity is another's lyric." In doing so, the Court protected two elements of speech: the emotive (the expression of emotion) and the cognitive (the expression of ideas).

[thefirstimmortal]

QUESTION PRESENTED
Can the expression of words stating a political opinion be punished on the ground that such expression creates a tendency that others will respond with violent behavior, where there is an absence of any evidence of a likelihood that such a violent response would in fact occur?

[thefirstimmortal]

QUESTION PRESENTED
Are the words "Fuck the Draft" obscene?

[thefirstimmortal]

QUESTION PRESENTED
Are these words patently offensive because they affront community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters?

[thefirstimmortal]

QUESTION PRESENTED
Are these words utterly without redeeming social value?

[thefirstimmortal]

QUESTION PRESENTED
Can non-obscene speech (and particularly speech expressing a political point of view) ever be abridged simply because others find the expression offensive?

[thefirstimmortal]

QUESTION PRESENTED
Is there a "non-speech element" which justifies abridging freedom of speech by reason of the fact that he expressed himself in the corridor of a public building when his physical presence and demeanor in such corridor (as distinguished from the words he expressed) was neither illegal, nor objected to by any authorities?

[thefirstimmortal]

QUESTION PRESENTED
Is a criminal statute which punishes speech as a form of "offensive conduct" without specifying which forms of speech will constitute such "offensive conduct" unconstitutionally overbroad in its chilling effect on freedom of speech?

[thefirstimmortal]

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

While in the courthouse corridor outside Division 20 of the Los Angeles Municipal Court, Appellant wore a jacket upon which were inscribed the words "Fuck the Draft" (A. 18). Also inscribed on the jacket were the words "Stop War" and two "peace symbols" (A. 19). Women and children were present in said corridor (A. 18). Appellant neither engaged in, threatened, nor incited any acts of violence (A. 19), nor were any other persons in the said corridor engaged in, threatening, or about to engage in acts of violence (A. 19). Appellant at no time caused the emission of any loud or unusual noises (A. 19). Appellant testified that by wearing the jacket as thus inscribed the public was made aware of the depth of feeling against the draft shared by himself and his friends (A. 19-20), and that he had no wish to vex, annoy, or injure others (A. 20).

[thefirstimmortal]

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Appellant was clearly engaging in speech, and such speech is entitled to First and Fourteenth Amendment protection because it neither contained nor was it accompanied by any of the elements which this Court has heretofore recognized as justifying abridgment of freedom of speech.

There was no threat of violence such as to justify abridgment of Appellant's speech. The Settled Statement makes clear that there was no likelihood of violence either from Appellant or from anyone viewing his words. The trial court erroneously held that no violence potential need be shown in order to convict for the use of words which constitute "offensive conduct." This in itself requires reversal. But even under the construction adopted by the Court of Appeal it is clear that a mere "tendency" that violence might result from some unidentified bystanders is too remote a danger to justify abridgment of speech (Argument I A (1)).

Even if there were a likelihood of violence by those opposing Appellant's speech, this in itself would not justify vitiating Appellant's First Amendment rights, at least in the absence of a showing that the police were unable to restrain those who would resort to violence (Argument I A (2)).

The so-called "fighting words" doctrine is not here applicable because there was no showing of a likelihood that a breach of the peace would result from Appellant's words, and further because Appellant's words were not "fighting words" in the sense of attacking or criticizing those to whom the words were being addressed (Argument I A (3)).

Appellant's words were not "obscene" in the constitutional sense as this Court has defined obscenity in that the dominant theme of the words "Fuck the Draft" does not appeal to a prurient interest in sex, the words are not patently offensive by reason of affronting contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters, and the words are not utterly without redeeming social value (Argument I B).

[thefirstimmortal]

COHEN v. CALIFORNIA

No. 299

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

403 U.S. 15; 91 S. Ct. 1780; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 32;
29 L. Ed. 2d 284

February 22, 1971, Argued


June 7, 1971, Decided

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA,


SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT.


SYLLABUS: Appellant was convicted of violating that part of Cal.
Penal Code Sec. 415 which prohibits "maliciously and willfully
disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . .
. by . . . offensive conduct," for wearing a jacket bearing the
words "Fuck the Draft" in a corridor of the Los Angeles
Courthouse. The Court of Appeal held that "offensive conduct"
means "behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of
violence or to in turn disturb the peace," and affirmed the
conviction. Held: Absent a more particularized and compelling
reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the
First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of
this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense. Pp. 22-26.

COUNSEL: Melville B. Nimmer argued the cause for appellant. With
him on the brief was Laurence R. Sperber.

Michael T. Sauer argued the cause for appellee. With him on
the brief was Roger Arnebergh.

Anthony G. Amsterdam filed a brief for the American Civil
Liberties Union of Northern California as amicus curiae urging
reversal.

Harlan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Douglas,
Brennan, Stewart, and Marshall, JJ., joined. Blackmun, J., filed
a dissenting opinion, in which Burger, C. J., and Black, J.,
joined, and in which White, J., joined in part, post, p. 27.

[thefirstimmortal]

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case may seem at first blush too inconsequential to find
its way into our books, but the issue it presents is of no small
constitutional significance.

"On April 26, 1968, the defendant was observed in the Los
Angeles County Courthouse in the corridor outside of division
20 of the municipal court wearing a jacket bearing the words 'Fuck
the Draft' which were plainly visible. There were women and
children present in the corridor. The defendant was arrested.
The defendant testified that he wore the jacket knowing that the
words were on the jacket as a means of informing the public of the
depth of his feelings against the Vietnam War and the draft.

"The defendant did not engage in, nor threaten to engage in,
nor did anyone as the result of his conduct in fact commit or
threaten to commit any act of violence. The defendant did not
make any loud or unusual noise, nor was there any evidence that he
uttered any sound prior to his arrest." 1 Cal. App. 3d 94, 97-98,
81 Cal. Rptr. 503, 505 (1969).

In affirming the conviction the Court of Appeal held that
"offensive conduct" means "behavior which has a tendency to
provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the
peace," and that the State had proved this element because, on the
facts of this case, "it was certainly reasonably foreseeable that
such conduct might cause others to rise up to commit a violent act
against the person of the defendant or attempt to forceably remove
his jacket." 1 Cal. App. 3d, at 99-100, 81 Cal. Rptr., at 506. The
California Supreme Court declined review by a divided vote. n2 We
brought the case here, postponing the consideration of the
question of our jurisdiction over this appeal to a hearing of the
case on the merits. 399 U.S. 904. We now reverse.

The question of our jurisdiction need not detain us long.
Throughout the proceedings below, Cohen consistently claimed
that, as construed to apply to the facts of this case, the statute
infringed his rights to freedom of expression guaranteed by the
First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution. That
contention has been rejected by the highest California state court
in which review could be had. Accordingly, we are fully satisfied
that Cohen has properly invoked our jurisdiction by this appeal.
28 U. S. C. Sec. 1257 (2); Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant,
257 U.S. 282 (1921).

In order to lay hands on the precise issue which this case
involves, it is useful first to canvass various matters which this
record does not present.

The conviction quite clearly rests upon the asserted
offensiveness of the words Cohen used to convey his message to the
public. The only "conduct" which the State sought to punish is
the fact of communication. Thus, we deal here with a conviction
resting solely upon "speech," cf. Stromberg v. California, 283
U.S. 359 (1931), not upon any separately identifiable conduct
which allegedly was intended by Cohen to be perceived by others as
expressive of particular views but which, on its face, does not
necessarily convey any message and hence arguably could be
regulated without effectively repressing Cohen's ability to
express himself. Cf. United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367
(1968). Further, the State certainly lacks power to punish Cohen
for the underlying content of the message the inscription
conveyed. At least so long as there is no showing of an intent to
incite disobedience to or disruption of the draft, Cohen could
not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, be
punished for asserting the evident position on the inutility or
immorality of the draft his jacket reflected

Appellant's conviction, then, rests squarely upon his exercise
of the "freedom of speech" protected from arbitrary governmental
interference by the Constitution and can be justified, if at all,
only as a valid regulation of the manner in which he exercised
that freedom, not as a permissible prohibition on the substantive
message it conveys.

We think it important to note that several issues typically
associated with such problems are not presented here.

In the first place, Cohen was tried under a statute applicable
throughout the entire State. Any attempt to support this
conviction on the ground that the statute seeks to preserve an
appropriately decorous atmosphere in the courthouse where Cohen
was arrested must fail in the absence of any language in the
statute that would have put appellant on notice that certain kinds
of otherwise permissible speech or conduct would nevertheless,
under California law, not be tolerated in certain places. See
Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 236-237, and n. 11
(1963). Cf. Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966). No fair
reading of the phrase "offensive conduct" can be said sufficiently
to inform the ordinary person that distinctions between certain
locations are thereby created. n3

While the four-letter word displayed by Cohen in relation
to the draft is not uncommonly employed in a personally
provocative fashion, there is, as noted above, no showing that
anyone who saw Cohen was in fact violently aroused or that
appellant intended such a result.


Finally, in arguments before this Court much has been made of
the claim that Cohen's distasteful mode of expression was thrust
upon unwilling or unsuspecting viewers, and that the State might
therefore legitimately act as it did in order to protect the
sensitive from otherwise unavoidable exposure to appellant's crude
form of protest. Of course, the mere presumed presence of
unwitting listeners or viewers does not serve automatically to
justify curtailing all speech capable of giving offense. See, e.
g., Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415
(1971).


While this Court has recognized that government may
properly act in many situations to prohibit intrusion into the
privacy of the home of unwelcome views and ideas which cannot be
totally banned from the public dialogue, e. g., Rowan v. Post
Office Dept., 397 U.S. 728 (1970), we have at the same time
consistently stressed that "we are often 'captives' outside the
sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech.

The ability of government, consonant with the
Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from
hearing it is, in other words, essentially intolerable. Any broader
view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to
silence dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections.


Those in the Los Angeles courthouse could effectively
avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by
averting their eyes.

Given the subtlety and complexity of the factors
involved, if Cohen's "speech" was otherwise entitled to
constitutional protection, we do not think the fact that some
unwilling "listeners" in a public building may have been briefly
exposed to it can serve to justify this breach of the peace
conviction where, as here, there was no evidence that persons
powerless to avoid appellant's conduct did in fact object to it,
and where that portion of the statute upon which Cohen's
conviction rests evinces no concern, either on its face or as
construed by the California courts, with the special plight of the
captive auditor, but, instead, indiscriminately sweeps within its
prohibitions all "offensive conduct" that disturbs "any
neighborhood or person." Cf. Edwards v. South Carolina, supra. n4

It is, in sum, our judgment that, absent a more particularized
and compellingreason for its actions, the State may not,
consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the
simple public display here involved of this single four-letter
expletive a criminal offense. Because that is the only arguably
sustainable rationale for the conviction here at issue, the
judgment below must be

Reversed.

[Bruce Klein]

Fuck.. Fuck.. Fuck!

[Jace Tropic]

Shame -- Shame!

[Lazarus Long]

All this fucking and still no fun.

Has anyone else ever wondered why if the activity is associated with an "act of love" then why do we say "we're fucked" when things go wrong? Or fuck you! to imply resentment and anger?

Here is a linguistic sidelight "You can't rape the willing" but the infinitive "to fuck" is etymologically more than a mere sexual act and acquires its negative connotation from a "forced activity" (rape and spousal obligation) that implies an activity of somewhat unwilling participation.

Second note, do you know the derivation of the Latin word "spouse"?

This one will really piss some people off, in Spanish they still use the term "esposas" (literally wives) to refer to them; it means handcuffs. The bondage of chains we put on slaves to ensure their cooperation.

Even in Ancient Rome that defined the Family as the central structure of the State the principle of marriage was coincident with bondage and this should come as no surprise to a student of history that when one talked of trophy wives back then they were referring to the women actually seized against their will after war.

The distinction of legitimate marriage and family was the acknowledgment of mutual obligations with respect to family and this was the symbol of being BONDED to someone in literal bondage with chains.

We have tended to seek a new fashion statement for the activity since then along with a lot of spinning of the principle to sell it to the public. The reason for the chains was to ensure the genes of the offspring and guarantee the parents wouldn't just dump them on the rest of the tribe and run away as fast as they could from the kids and each other.

[thefirstimmortal]

Profanity has become a vital ingredient in the language of dissent as used by many people, and by many members of minority groups. If the use of such words were to be legally proscribed, the language of dissent, and hence the democratic dialogue, would be severely inhibited.

[thefirstimmortal]

Society at large now tolerates and even rewards the use of the word "fuck" in the arts and in motion pictures. It would be ludicrous to try and stop the use of a word which appears in seven out of the ten best-selling works of fiction, and which is generally acceptable to a large segment of society

[thefirstimmortal]

Freedom of speech serves a safety-value function, as men are less inclined to resort to violence to achieve given ends if they can freely express themselves verbally with respect to such ends. The cathartic effect of four-letter-word speech is obvious.

[thefirstimmortal]

Eminem, America, From "The Eminem Show"

America
Hahaha
We love you

How many people are proud to be citizens of this beautiful country of ours?
The stripes and the stars for the rights of men who have died to protect?
The women and men who have broke their necks for the freedom of speech
The United States Government has sworn to uphold

Or so we're told...


I never woulda dreamed in a million years id see
so many mutha fucking people who feel like me
Who share the same views
And the same exact beliefs
Its like a fucking army marching in back of me
So many lives I touched
So much anger aimed at no particular direction
Just sprays and sprays
Straight through your radio waves
It plays and plays
Till it stays stuck in your head
For days and days

See the problem is I speak to suburban kids
Who otherwise
Woulda never knew these words exist
These moms probably woulda never gave 2 squirts of piss
Till I created so much mutha fuckin turbulence
Straight out the tube right into ya living rooms
I came and kids flipped
When they found out I was produced by Dre
That's all it took
And they were instantly hooked right in
And they connected wit me too 'cause i looked like them
That's why they put my lyrics up under this microscope
Searching wit a fine toothed comb
It's like this rope waiting to choke
Tightening around my throat
Watching me while I write this like "I don't like this, NO!"
All I hear is
Lyrics lyrics constant controversy
Sponsors working round the clock
To try to stop my concerts early

Just look at me like I'm ya closest pal
A poster child
The mutha fuckin spokesman now!

So to the parents of America
I am the damager aimed at little Erica
To attack her character
The ring leader of the circus of worthless pawns
Sent to lead the march right up to the steps of Congress
And piss on the lawns of the White House
To burn the casket and replace it with a parental advisory sticker
To spit liquor in the faces of this democracy of hypocrisy
Fuck you Ms Cheeney
Fuck you Tipper Gore
Fuck you with the free-este of speech
This divided state of embarrassment will allow me to have

[Lazarus Long]

Profanity has become a vital ingredient in the language of dissent as used by many people, and by many members of minority groups. If the use of such words were to be legally proscribed, the language of dissent, and hence the democratic dialogue, would be severely inhibited.

This is not historically accurate, slang and profanity have ALWAYS been a vital part of the common vernacular. We call such language "vulgar" because it is the language of the "Vulgate" again Latin for the "People". To be vulgar was to use the language of the common folk.

Funny about that ehh.

[Lazarus Long]

"Common" is the key word here.
Christians don't want to be "common".

Christianity began as the religion of slaves, rebels, the conquered, poor and disenfranchised common folk communicating in exactly the Vulgar Latin across an Empire until that religion was co-opted by the Empire to serve its purposes. It has been serving that purpose ever since.

When it achieved the institutional status of "Official" it also assumed the trappings of wealth and power to go with it and then affirmed the "Official Word of the Church" to be in Latin as opposed to the more common Greek, Aramaic and regional dialects that prevailed around the decaying and divided Empire.

Christians are the common folk seeking to adopt airs of superiority in culture and for domination over other cultures. Christian armies have been the marching emblem of the Roman legions rebuilding Empire for nearly two millennium. This is the psychology of self loathing exemplified by the neurosis of denial. It is a mechanism for exploiting and manipulating mass behavior through common psychological weakness and vulnerability.

They didn't call them Crusades for nothing.

[David]

Hey Bush fella, are you having a lend, taking the piss, pulling the leg, taking the mickey, or just off your trolley?

My background is christian, you know the type, church on sunday (EVERY sunday), sunday school for hours before hand, mother teaching sunday school in the next room. I seem to remember that exploiting the minds of weak minded fools was against the main tenant of the faith, that of do unto others. The empire of Jesus is meant to be in the heart and soul, not centred in some silly border schirmish, or fighting someone elses family feud 'cos theyre too yellow to do it themself, or the chasing of the bloody dollar. Your unelected president is nothing more that a modern day hillbilly, looking for someone to pick on to make his insecurities go away for a while.

Your current namesake is seen by the rest of the world (That is, everybody outside your borders, with the exception of our sychophantic leaders) as a dangerouse imbicile, under the influence of the well documented southern states of America cultural phenomena "Cutlure of Honour". (Look it up. You may just want to hide under a rock.)

Killing people is against the beliefs of true christians too. There's no clause that says "no killin children, except for when the government or the church says you can. It just says 'no killin children'. Full stop. End of commandment. Nothing to be added, subtracted or inserted.

Even when I was a god loving (you'll notice I don't say fearing, BTW) christian, my main aim in life was to serve, not dominate.

If you are doing any of the things I mention in the first paragraph, good on you, you got a laugh out of me, and I'm sure the rest of the world will laugh along with us. [lol] If you're not, well, good on you too, 'cos I'm still laughing, 'cept it's not with you, it's at you. And the rest of your kind. [B)]

Dave.

Ps. You can tell I haven't had my chocolate today, can't you?

[David]

I have exams on at the moment, I'll have to get back to you, perhaps I can save your soul, 'cos currently, you in trouble, brother! Sounds like you're a victim of "groupspeak" instead of listening to your heart and soul.

Killin' to stop killin' aint right, or justified, it's just more killin'!

And you can quote me on that one.

Heaven doesn't go to the self righteous, it goes to the righteous.

Quote me on that one too if you like.

Dave.

[Jace Tropic]

Oh no! What happened to the title of this thread? Did your conscience get the better of you, Bill. )

[Bruce Klein]

Seems we have no policy in place for ImmInst leadership and editing posts.. thus... my request in the past to 'clean up' posts.. asked of leadership is far too vague.

I'm scheduling a chat session with leadership to discuss this Sun. Nov 23 and have asked leaders to hold of on editing any posts until we have a polich in place.

--By the way... anyone remember what the title was originally?

[Lazarus Long]

Jace:
Oh no! What happened to the title of this thread? Did your conscience get the better of you, Bill. )

I am quite confident Bill didn't change it and I suspect this will make his point better than his eloquence. It has been changed by an unnamed guardian of our minds. Someone that should have to speak up and defend their postition IMO.

[Jace Tropic]

Ah. In that case I suspect the wunderkind. Quite the little pedant, eh?