Kovacs v Cooper

Kovacs v Cooper - of the Bill of Rights are not...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Kovacs v. Cooper 1952 I. Facts a. Charles Kovacs was driven around Trenton, New Jersey. He played music and spoke through an amplifier that he had placed on the truck in which he was riding. He was convicted for violating Ordinance No. 430 of the City of Trenton, which prohibited the use of sound amplifiers and other instruments that emitted "loud and raucous noises" on public streets. He appealed his conviction to the New Jersey Supreme Court, alleging that the ordinance violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld his conviction, as did the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals. b. II. Legal Questions presented a. Did Trenton's Ordinance 430 violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment? b. III. Answers a. No. In a 5-4 decision, the court affirmed the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals and upheld Kovacs' conviction. Writing for the three-justice plurality, Justice Stanley F. Reed reiterated that the "fundamental rights
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: of the Bill of Rights are not absolute", and as in Saia v. New York , "the hours and place of public discussion can be controlled." Trenton was granted the authority to prevent "disturbing noises" and "protect the wellbeing and tranquility of a community." Since the ordinance furthered Trenton's interest in maintaining "the quiet and tranquility so desirable for city dwellers," the ordinance did not violate the Free Speech Clause. Justices Robert H. Jackson and Felix Frankfurter each concurred separately. IV. Reasons (by ___) a. Form of argument b. Legal doctrines V. Dissent reasons VI. Concurring reasons Notes Standards used to determine suppression of speech. (Not developed in this case) The Restriction must: 1.) Have a Good Reason 2.) Be Appropriate not overly broad 3.) Not Discriminatory (evenhanded) (Underinclusive) 4.) Alternative available means...
View Full Document

Page1 / 2

Kovacs v Cooper - of the Bill of Rights are not...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online