CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
W.B. Fisch, Fall 2006
Assignment #41

3.  Speech Conflicting With Other Community Values

C. "Fighting Words" and Offensive Speech

Cantwell v. Connecticut, p. 1398 (1940)

• What was the defendant's conduct on the basis of which he was prosecuted?
• the expression of an objectionable opinion?
• playing a phonograph on the streets?
• What was the definition of the crime with which he was charged?
• Is the speech involved in this case distinguishable from "subversive speech" (previous assignment)? Is one more appropriately suppressed than another?
• speech which advocates and intends to produce a violent or otherwise unlawful audience action toward others?
• speech which in fact produces a violent audience reaction toward the speaker?

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, p. 1399 (1942).

• What was the defendant's conduct forming the basis of prosecution?
• How did the statute define the crime with which he was charged?
• Why was Chaplinsky's speech unprotected?

COHEN V. CALIFORNIA, p. 1399 (1971): how does it differ from Chaplinsky?

VIRGINIA V. BLACK, p. 1405 (2003)
     1.   What conduct is being prosecuted? Is it factually different from R.A.V., discussed in the opinions?
     2.   How does the statute define the crime?  How does it differ from the R.A.V. ordinance?
               a.   What element was arguably missing in the facts?
b.   is there any doubt that Elliott’s and O’Mara’s conduct fit the core definition?
c.   is there any doubt that Black’s conduct fit the definition?
d.   how did the statute purport to deal with proof of the arguably missing element?