|
conchata ferrell, bostonmassachusetts, job listings, toasterovens, jason london, personal narrative non fiction, tom jarmusch, feature film comedy, astronomy, igor, strictly 4 my, tony scott, charlie croker, advertisements, parody, mp3 2 pac, portillo,
|
. ..' [ Footnote 2 ] The standard of responsibility is not left open as the Court said it was in Gooding v. Wilson, 404U.S. 518 ( 1972), and in Ashton v. Kentucky, 384U.S. 195 (1966). The statute punishes career language which in its ordinary acceptation is calculated to cause a breach of the peace. The statute on its face does not permit or require an inquiry into career the respective boiling points of the particular individuals or groups involved in each case, but restricts the fact finder to language that career would, in its common or ordinary acceptation, be calculated to cause a breach of the peace. In Chaplinsky, the Court accepted a limiting construction which held that the statute was 'not to be defined in terms of what a particular addressee thinks . . .. The test is what men of common intelligence would understand would be words likely to cause an average addressee to fight.' 315U.S., at 573 . In its Holmes case, the Arkansas Supreme Court pronounced exactly the same standard: 'It is not sufficient that the language used gives offense to the person to whom or about whom it is addressed, but it must that which in its ordinary acceptation is calculated to give offense and to arouse to anger.'
|
