Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
stevemagegod

Cohen v. California

2 posts in this topic

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?

  1. The Court ruled the language on the jacket did not constitute "fighting words."
  2. The Court upheld the protestor's conviction under a "disturbing the peace" violation.
  3. The Court ruled the language on the jacket did not appeal to prurient interests and was therefore legal.
  4. 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

  1. The Court ruled the language on the jacket did not constitute "fighting words."
  2. The Court upheld the protestor's conviction under a "disturbing the peace" violation.
  3. The Court ruled the language on the jacket did not appeal to prurient interests and was therefore legal.
  4. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.