Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Cohen v. California

cohen v. california

  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1    stevemagegod

stevemagegod

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,137 posts
  • Joined:06 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Buffalo,NY

  • "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind"-Neil Armstrong

Posted 26 February 2013 - 05:10 PM

Cohen v. California (1971) involved a protestor who was arrested for wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words “F--- the draft.” Which of the following is not true of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case?
  • The Court ruled the language on the jacket did not constitute "fighting words."
  • The Court upheld the protestor's conviction under a "disturbing the peace" violation.
  • The Court ruled the language on the jacket did not appeal to prurient interests and was therefore legal.
  • The Court ruled the four-letter word in question was crucial to the expression of a strong political sentiment.

I all ready ruled out A) The Court ruled the language on the jacket did not constitute "fighting words. and D) The Court ruled the four-letter word in question was crucial to the expression of a strong political sentiment.
However i am having trouble ruling out b and C. This is an online course and i am allowed to use any resource on the web. Perhaps you guys could help me out a  little bit?

Edited by stevemagegod, 26 February 2013 - 05:12 PM.


#2    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 12,640 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 26 February 2013 - 05:20 PM

View Poststevemagegod, on 26 February 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

Cohen v. California (1971) involved a protestor who was arrested for wearing a jacket emblazoned with the words “F--- the draft.” Which of the following is not true of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case?
  • The Court ruled the language on the jacket did not constitute "fighting words."
  • The Court upheld the protestor's conviction under a "disturbing the peace" violation.
  • The Court ruled the language on the jacket did not appeal to prurient interests and was therefore legal.
  • The Court ruled the four-letter word in question was crucial to the expression of a strong political sentiment.

I all ready ruled out A) The Court ruled the language on the jacket did not constitute "fighting words. and D) The Court ruled the four-letter word in question was crucial to the expression of a strong political sentiment.
However i am having trouble ruling out b and C. This is an online course and i am allowed to use any resource on the web. Perhaps you guys could help me out a  little bit?
I would choose number 2.  The decision appears to have gone FOR the plaintiff and in this context the use of that word certainly isn't sexual in the normal sense, so it seems  the remaining statement would be inaccurate -just my 2 cents.

  Imagination is the power in the turn of a phrase.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users