Feiner v. New York – hostile audiences & the 1st amendment  Cantwell recognized speaker cannot be punished for trying to persuade others about offensive ideas. BUT also that  Abusive epithets are not protected (fighting words); and  A speaker who intends to provoke violence or disturbance of good order is not protected – we deal with this situation now  What did Feiner do to cause the Court to conclude that he had “undertaken incitement to riot”?  Why had he “passed the bounds of argument & persuasion” so the police were “justified” in concluding that “a clear and present danger of disorder was threatened?”  Do Feiner’s actions show “intent” to incite the crowd against him? Do they show that the crowd simply didn’t like what he had to say?  Was there a “clear and present danger” of disorder?

Feiner & Police Discretion  SCT notes that absent improper motives, police have great discretion to determine when a speaker is “undertaking to” cause a clear & imminent danger of disorder:  What kind of guidance does the concept of ‘clear & present danger of disorder’ give to the police who are trying to determine whether to intervene and stop a speaker when the crowd is hostile?  Can we readily discern police motives regarding why they shut speakers down?  Where should we look to determine police motives?  How often are such motives overtly “improper”?

Feiner & the Black dissent  Justice Black contends that the police should make “all reasonable efforts to protect” the speaker:  What should such efforts entail?  How does this approach differ from the majority’s focus on whether D was “inciting a riot” and presenting, in the police’s good faith belief, a “clear and present danger” of disorder?

Feine r’s Aftermath – Cox, Edwards, & Gregory  Post- Feiner cases - really a “far cry from Feiner ?”  Edwards – 80ish protestors/crowd of /30 police  Cox – 2000 protestors/crowd of /80 police  Gregory – 85 protestors/crowd of 1000/? Police  What principles do they establish different from Feiner ?

Terry Jones & hostile audiences  In the first incident – p. 543 – Should the police have removed Jones or tried to protect him per the case law we’ve seen?  Is the restraining order “because he was likely to breach to peace” in the immediately succeeding incident (p. 544 top) markedly worse or better from a free speech perspective?