Chiles v. Salazar · ¶35
From these general principles, other more specific ones follow. So, for example, a law regulating the content of speech cannot avoid searching First Amendment review just because it mostly regulates non-expressive conduct. Take a classic illustration: Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15 (1971). There, the State of California charged Paul Cohen with “maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace.” Id., at 16 (internal quotation marks omitted). Often, of course, a person disturbs the peace through conduct alone (say, by brawling at a city council meeting). But that is not always true. And in Mr. Cohen's case, California charged him for disturbing the peace because he wore a jacket bearing the words “ `Fuck the Draft' ” in the corridor of a municipal courthouse. Ibid. As applied to him, the Court recognized, the law implicated core First Amendment concerns because the only “ `conduct' ”…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.