Hooks v. State
Indiana Court of Appeals
1DissentRobertson, Judge
I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that unamplified, verbal, politically protected speech expressed on a city street may be punished as a crime because that speech was overheard by persons across the street. I am a bit confused. It seems to me that only that speech which may be overheard could possibly require First Amendment protection. The majority would appear to uphold First Amendment protection to the sound of one hand clapping, but not two.
The First Amendment recognizes that a certain amount of expressive disorder not only is inevitable in a society committed to individual…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- City of Houston v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Price v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
- Shell Oil Co. v. MeyerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1997
- Radford v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1994
- Whittington v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1994
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.