Cohen v. CA & the power of the First Amendment.

I did my oral argument today. It went terribly. And not in the I say it went terribly but really I did great I just don’t want to toot my own horn kind of way. I legit did badly. Stumbled over my words, sounded like a dumbass answering the questions. It didn’t help that I was completely nauseous and had a migraine all day (unrelated to said oral argument). Luckily my Prof didn’t go very hard on us. It could have been much worse. I really don’t even care though, it wasn’t graded anyway. My prof knows I am a good student and knew the material based on all the briefs I’ve submitted all semester. I’m just going to pretend it didn’t happen.

Despite feeling quite sick (and being told by my law school bff that I should “go home because you look like you want to kill someone.” Apparently I scowl when I am ill), today was one of the better classroom experiences I have had thus far. In ConLaw, no less. And it wasn’t just because the F-bomb was dropped no less than 40 times in an hour and a half (yes, someone counted), and was both entirely appropriate and encouraged. Our case for discussion was Cohen v. California, a monumental supreme court case on the First Amendment. Essentially, a guy went into a CA court with a jacket that said “F--- the Draft.” This was during Vietnam. Cohen was arrested. And while the issue was legally compartmentalized into the question of whether an individual can say the F-bomb in a courthouse, it stood for much more. It stands for our right to the free flow of ideas. Because when the USSC said that cohen had the right to wear his jacket in the courthouse, it said that we all have the right to say, screw the draft, screw the government, screw the courthouse, screw the POTUS. You can say it, you can write it on your jacket, you can tattoo it on your rear end.

Now of course, there are limitations. You can say F- the government because it’s a nonspecific expression. It’s not going to incite rebellion or violence. Essentially, you’re not going to hurt anyone by saying it. You may hurt someone’s feelings, but we can’t place a limitation on speech and expression solely because of the prospect of hurting someone’s feelings. We have to acknowledge a person’s capability to turn their eyes or ears away from offensive expression. We do not have a right to be free from offensive behavior. It is a fine, fine, fine balancing line. A distinction between an individual’s right to free expression and an individual’s right NOT to have to modify his own behavior to avoid being offended by others, because when we ask someone to turn a blind eye, we ask him to give up a little of his own rights.

So as my fellow classmates and I debated the finer points (from both legal and personal points of view), we exercised exactly what the first amendment advocates. The free flow of ideas. In a society as diverse as ours, there will never be agreement. But it is out of the challenges to each other’s ideas that we grow. Personally. Professionally. Individually. Socially. This is what our country strives to protect. It is a privilege that many in other countries do not share. This is why I study law.

Ohhhhhh. And possible post coming about Burton v. Wilmington (Parking Authority) that I mentioned in SGP Chat last night. I checked back and it actually was Wilmington, DE, which makes it much less funny, but still kind of funny :)