zantax
102
Really, so if I have a party, by invitation, for 250 people, it is now a public event? Don’t think so.
1 Like
zantax
103
She was composing a song.
from Cohen v. California - Wikipedia
Justice John Harlan announced the decision of the Court, which reversed the appellate court’s ruling in a 5–4 decision.[23] First, Justice Harlan’s opinion confirmed that the issue with which the Court was dealing consisted of “a conviction resting solely upon ‘speech’, [citation], not upon any separately identifiable conduct”. Because the conviction was based on speech, Justice Harlan stated that the defendant may be criminally punished only if his speech (the words on his jacket) fell within a specific category of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment.[24] The justice then outlined why the word ■■■■■■ did not fall into one of those categories.[25] As Justice Harlan said in the decision, "…while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric ".[26]
