Text free and fuck Freenudewebcam shows
offensive conduct," for wearing a jacket bearing the words "Fuck the Draft" in a corridor of the Los Angeles Courthouse. HARLAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, STEWART, and MARSHALL, JJ., joined. In fact, words are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force. Indeed, governments might soon seize upon the censorship of particular words as a convenient guise for banning the expression of unpopular views.
Additionally, we cannot overlook the fact, because it [p26] is well illustrated by the episode involved here, that much linguistic expression serves a dual communicative function: it conveys not only ideas capable of relatively precise, detached explication, but otherwise inexpressible emotions as well. Finally, and in the same vein, we cannot indulge the facile assumption that one can forbid particular words without also running a substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process.
However, because the opinion below appears to erect a virtually irrebuttable presumption that use of this word will produce such results, the statute, as thus construed, appears to impose, in effect, a flat ban on the public utterance of this word. The California Court of Appeal appears so to have described it, 1 Cal. The Supreme Court of California declined review by a four-to-three vote on December 17. Chief Justice Traynor, who was among the dissenters to his court's refusal to take Cohen's case, wrote the majority opinion.
With the case in this posture, it does not seem inappropriate to inquire whether any other rationale might properly support this result. He held that § 415 "is not unconstitutionally vague and overbroad," and further said: [T]hat part of Penal Code section 415 in question here makes punishable only willful and malicious conduct that is violent and endangers public safety and order or that creates a clear and present danger that others will engage in violence of that nature.
There is one slight functional reason for this: users may have to pay for SMS messages, but not for i Messages, and thus it could have an impact on a bill.
But here's the more interesting tidbit, which is the crux of Ford's article: lots of people absolutely hate those green bubbles.
Paul Ford, once again, has written up something fascinating.
Meanwhile, a policeman sent the presiding judge a note suggesting that Cohen be held in contempt of court. In fact, other portions of the same statute do make some such distinctions. by loud or unusual noise" and using "vulgar, profane, or indecent language within the presence or hearing of women or children, in a loud and boisterous manner." This second-quoted provision in particular serves to put the actor on much fairer notice as to what is prohibited. Justice Murphy, a known champion of First Amendment freedoms, wrote for a unanimous bench. When an i Phone user texts with a non-i Phone user (or an i Phone user using something other than i Message -- meaning mainly Android users, obviously), those outgoing texts are in a harsh green.Here are the two examples Paul shows, starting with the i Phone to i Phone: As noted, I had no idea that this happened, because I don't own an i Phone.It's kind of amazing just how many people are tweeting about their hatred for green bubbles.Ford, then goes into a really interesting discussion on the nature of product management and design choices -- the kind of thing that Apple doesn't do on a whim -- to get to the real point: Apple is likely choosing harsh, ugly green bubbles on purpose.
The defendant did not make any loud or unusual noise, nor was there any evidence that he uttered any sound prior to his arrest. Indeed, we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual.