First Amendment Library
ADVANCED SEARCHPLUMMER v. CITY OF COLUMBUS, 414 U.S. 2 (1973)
- Argued:
- N/A
- Decided:
- October 15, 1973
- Decided by:
- Burger Court, 1973
- Action:
- Reversed. Petitioning party received a favorable disposition.
See Opinion tab for full case information.
Concurring Opinion
No opinions found
Dissenting Opinion
PLUMMER
v.
CITY OF COLUMBUS.
ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOR FRANKLIN COUNTY.PER CURIAM.
The Court of Appeals of Franklin County, Ohio, in an unreported opinion, affirmed appellant’s conviction of violating Columbus City Code § 2327.03, which provides: “No person shall abuse another by using menacing, insulting, slanderous, or profane language.” The Ohio Supreme Court, in an unreported order, sua sponte dismissed appellant’s appeal to that court “for the reason that no substantial constitutional question exists herein.” We grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and reverse.
On December 11, 1972, we held that Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518 (1972), required the reversal of a previous action of the Ohio Supreme Court that dismissed an appeal from a conviction under § 2327.03. Cason v. City of Columbus, 409 U. S. 1053. Section 2327.03 punishes only spoken words and, as construed by the Ohio courts, is facially unconstitutional because not limited *3 in application “to punish only unprotected speech” but is “susceptible of application to protected expression.” Gooding v. Wilson, supra, at 522. In that circumstance, the Ohio Supreme Court erred when it found no constitutional infirmity in the holding of the Court of Appeals of Franklin County that the ordinance might constitutionally reach appellant’s conduct because “the words as used by the [appellant] are in the nature of `fighting words’ and thereby fall within that limit of conduct proscribed by the ordinance . . . .” For ” `[a]lthough [the ordinance] may be neither vague, overbroad, nor otherwise invalid as applied to the conduct charged against a particular defendant, he is permitted to raise its vagueness or unconstitutional overbreadth as applied to others. And if the law is found deficient in one of these respects, it may not be applied to him either, until and unless a satisfactory limiting construction is placed on the [ordinance]. The [ordinance], in effect, is stricken down on its face. . . .’ ” Id., at 521.
Reversed.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN dissent for the reasons expressed in MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN’S dissenting opinion in Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518, 534 (1972), and in the dissenting statement in Cason v. City of Columbus, 409 U. S. 1053 (1972).
MR. JUSTICE POWELL, with whom MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST concurs, dissenting.
Appellant is a Columbus cab driver. He had a female fare in his cab who had requested to be taken to a certain address. When he passed this address, the fare complained and—according to the statement of the trial court—the cab driver’s response was “a series of absolutely *4 vulgar, suggestive and abhorrent, sexually-oriented statements.”
I would sustain appellant’s conviction for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Rosenfeld v. New Jersey, 408 U. S. 901, 906 (1972). As stated therein:
“[A] verbal assault on an unwilling audience [or an individual] may be so grossly offensive and emotionally disturbing as to be the proper subject of criminal proscription, whether under a statute denominating it disorderly conduct, or, more accurately, a public nuisance.”
The Columbus City Code was certainly sufficiently explicit to inform appellant that his verbal assault on a female passenger in his cab was “menacing and insulting.” As a wrong of this character does not fall within the protection of the First Amendment, the overbreadth doctrine is not applicable. See Model Penal Code, §§ 250.2 (1) (a) and (b) (Proposed Official Draft 1962); see also Williams v. District of Columbia, 136 U. S. App. D. C. 56, 64, 419 F. 2d 638, 646 (1969).
ALBERT SNYDER, PETITIONER v. FRED W. PHELPS, SR., et al., 562 U.S. 443 (2011)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
UNITED STATES v. ROBERT J. STEVENS, 559 U.S. 460 (2010)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Overbreadth Doctrine
DEBORAH MORSE, et al. v. JOSEPH FREDERICK, 551 U.S. 393 (2007)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
VIRGINIA v. BARRY ELTON BLACK, RICHARD J. ELLIOTT, AND JONATHAN O’MARA, 538 U.S. 343 (2003)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT v. UNITED REPORTING PUBLISHING CORPORATION, 528 U.S. 32 (1999)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Overbreadth Doctrine
JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al. v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al., 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Overbreadth Doctrine
PAUL SCHENCK AND DWIGHT SAUNDERS v. PRO-CHOICE NETWORK OF WESTERN NEW YORK et al., 519 U.S. 357 (1997)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
JOHN J. HURLEY AND SOUTH BOSTON ALLIED WAR VETERANS COUNCIL v. IRISH-AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL GROUP OF BOSTON, ETC., et al., 515 U.S. 557 (1995)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
JUDY MADSEN, et al. v. WOMEN’S HEALTH CENTER, INC., et al., 512 U.S. 753 (1994)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Overbreadth Doctrine
R.A.V. v. CITY OF ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Fighting Words, Protests
FORSYTH COUNTY, GEORGIA v. THE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT, 505 U.S. 123 (1992)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Overbreadth Doctrine
UNITED STATES v. SHAWN D. EICHMAN, DAVID GERALD BLALOCK AND SCOTT W. TYLER, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
OSBORNE v. OHIO, 495 U.S. 103 (1990)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Overbreadth Doctrine
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. SUPERIOR COURT TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION et al., 493 U.S. 411 (1990)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
FW/PBS, INC., DBA PARIS ADULT BOOKSTORE II, et al. v. CITY OF DALLAS et al., 493 U.S. 215 (1990)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Overbreadth Doctrine
SABLE COMMUNICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et al., 492 U.S. 115 (1989)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Overbreadth Doctrine
MASSACHUSETTS v. OAKES, 491 U.S. 576 (1989)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Overbreadth Doctrine
BOARD OF AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. v. JEWS FOR JESUS, INC., et al., 482 U.S. 569 (1987)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Overbreadth Doctrine
CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS v. HILL, 482 U.S. 451 (1987)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
UNITED STATES v. ALBERTINI, 472 U.S. 675 (1985)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
BROCKETT v. SPOKANE ARCADES, INC., et al., 472 U.S. 491 (1985)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Overbreadth Doctrine
CLARK, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, et al. v. COMMUNITY FOR CREATIVE NON-VIOLENCE et al., 468 U.S. 288 (1984)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. v. TAXPAYERS FOR VINCENT et al., 466 U.S. 789 (1984)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Overbreadth Doctrine
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE et al. v. CLAIBORNE HARDWARE CO. et al., 458 U.S. 886 (1982)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
CAREY, STATE’S ATTORNEY OF COOK COUNTY v. BROWN et al., 447 U.S. 455 (1980)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
VILLAGE OF SCHAUMBURG v. CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT et al., 444 U.S. 620 (1980)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Overbreadth Doctrine
OHRALIK v. OHIO STATE BAR ASSN., 436 U.S. 447 (1978)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Overbreadth Doctrine
BATES et al. v. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA, 433 U.S. 350 (1977)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Overbreadth Doctrine
SPENCE v. WASHINGTON, 418 U.S. 405 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
SMITH, SHERIFF v. GOGUEN, 415 U.S. 566 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
LEWIS v. CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, 415 U.S. 130 (1974)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Fighting Words, Protests
NORWELL v. CITY OF CINCINNATI, 414 U.S. 14 (1973)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al. v. MOSLEY, 408 U.S. 92 (1972)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
GRAYNED v. CITY OF ROCKFORD, 408 U.S. 104 (1972)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
GOODING, WARDEN v. WILSON, 405 U.S. 518 (1972)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Fighting Words, Overbreadth Doctrine, Protests
COHEN v. CALIFORNIA, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Fighting Words, Protests
COATES et al. v. CITY OF CINCINNATI, 402 U.S. 611 (1971)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
SCHACHT v. UNITED STATES, 398 U.S. 58 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
BACHELLAR et al. v. MARYLAND, 397 U.S. 564 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Fighting Words, Protests
JONES v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TENNESSEE et al., 397 U.S. 31 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
COWGILL v. CALIFORNIA, 396 U.S. 371 (1970)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
GREGORY et al. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, 394 U.S. 111 (1969)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
SHUTTLESWORTH v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, 394 U.S. 147 (1969)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
TINKER et al. v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT et al., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
UNITED STATES v. O’BRIEN, 391 U.S. 367 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
ZWICKER et al. v. BOLL, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF DANE COUNTY et al., 391 U.S. 353 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
CAMERON et al. v. JOHNSON, GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI, et al., 390 U.S. 611 (1968)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
WALKER et al. v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, 388 U.S. 307 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
TURNER et al. v. NEW YORK, 386 U.S. 773 (1967)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
ADDERLEY et al. v. FLORIDA, 385 U.S. 39 (1966)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE et al. v. OVERSTREET, 384 U.S. 118 (1966)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
BROWN et al. v. LOUISIANA, 383 U.S. 131 (1966)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
SHUTTLESWORTH v. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, 382 U.S. 87 (1965)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE v. ALABAMA ex rel. FLOWERS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, 377 U.S. 288 (1964)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Overbreadth Doctrine
HENRY et al. v. CITY OF ROCK HILL, 376 U.S. 776 (1964)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
FIELDS et al. v. CITY OF FAIRFIELD., 375 U.S. 248 (1963)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
FIELDS et al. v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 372 U.S. 522 (1963)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
EDWARDS et al. v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 372 U.S. 229 (1963)
- Related Sub-Topics:
- Fighting Words, Protests
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE v. BUTTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, et al., 371 U.S. 415 (1963)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Overbreadth Doctrine
FEINER v. NEW YORK, 340 U.S. 315 (1951)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Fighting Words
HUGHES ET AL. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, 339 U.S. 460 (1950)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
TERMINIELLO v. CHICAGO, 337 U.S. 1 (1949)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Fighting Words
KOVACS v. COOPER, JUDGE, 336 U.S. 77 (1949)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
CHAPLINSKY v. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Fighting Words
CARLSON v. CALIFORNIA, 310 U.S. 106 (1940)
- Related Sub-Topic:
- Protests
Topics: Fighting Words, Freedom of Assembly & Petition, Freedom of Speech & Expression, Overbreadth Doctrine, Protests
Cite this page: APA Bluebook Chicago MLA
This library is a work in progress. See an error on this page? Let us know.