Text free and fuck
There is one slight functional reason for this: users may have to pay for SMS messages, but not for i Messages, and thus it could have an impact on a bill.But here's the more interesting tidbit, which is the crux of Ford's article: lots of people absolutely hate those green bubbles. Further, the State certainly lacks power to punish Cohen for the underlying content of the message the inscription conveyed. 359 (1931), not upon any separately identifiable conduct which allegedly was intended by Cohen to be perceived by others as expressive of particular views but which, on its face, does not necessarily convey any message, and hence arguably could be regulated without effectively repressing Cohen's ability to express himself. In the first place, Cohen was tried under a statute applicable throughout the entire State. It cannot plausibly be maintained that this vulgar allusion to the Selective Service System would conjure up such psychic stimulation in anyone likely to be confronted with Cohen's crudely defaced jacket. In this regard, persons confronted with Cohen's jacket were in a quite different posture than, say, those subjected to the raucous emissions of sound trucks blaring outside their residences.
Here are just a few examples I quickly found (Paul has others in his article).
The California Supreme Court declined review by a divided vote. That contention has been rejected by the highest California state court in which review could be had. Thus, we deal here with a conviction resting solely upon "speech," 283 U. It is whether California can excise, as "offensive conduct," one particular scurrilous epithet from the public discourse, either upon the theory of the court below that its use is inherently likely to cause violent reaction or upon a more general assertion that the States, acting as guardians of public morality, [p23] may properly remove this offensive word from the public vocabulary. There may be some persons about with such lawless and violent proclivities, but that is an insufficient base upon which to erect, consistently with constitutional values, a governmental power to force persons who wish to ventilate their dissident views into avoiding particular forms of expression. Equally important to our conclusion is the constitutional backdrop against which our decision must be made. To many, the immediate consequence of this freedom may often appear to be only verbal tumult, discord, and [p25] even offensive utterance. Against this perception of the constitutional policies involved, we discern certain more particularized considerations that peculiarly call for reversal of this conviction.
Throughout the proceedings below, Cohen consistently [p18] claimed that, as construed to apply to the facts of this case, the statute infringed his rights to freedom of expression guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution. The only "conduct" which the State sought to punish is the fact of communication. Given the subtlety and complexity of the factors involved, if Cohen's "speech" was otherwise entitled to constitutional protection, we do not think the fact that some unwilling "listeners" in a public building may have been briefly exposed to it can serve to justify this breach of the peace conviction where, as here, there was no evidence that persons powerless to avoid appellant's conduct did in fact, object to it, and where that portion of the statute upon which Cohen's conviction rests evinces no concern, either on its face or as construed by the California courts, with the special plight of the captive auditor, but, instead, indiscriminately sweeps within its prohibitions all "offensive conduct" that disturbs "any neighborhood or person." II Against this background, the issue flushed by this case stands out in bold relief. We have been shown no evidence that substantial numbers of citizens are standing ready to strike out physically at whoever may assault their sensibilities with execrations like that uttered by Cohen. The argument amounts to little more than the self-defeating proposition that, to avoid physical censorship of one who has not sought to provoke such a response by a hypothetical coterie of the violent and lawless, the States may more appropriately effectuate that censorship themselves. At the outset, we cannot overemphasize that, in our judgment, most situations where the State has a justifiable interest in regulating speech will fall within one or more of the various established exceptions, discussed above but not applicable here, to the usual rule that governmental bodies may not prescribe the form or content of individual expression.
Further, the State certainly lacks power to punish Cohen for the underlying content of the message the inscription conveyed. This does not end the inquiry, of course, for the First and Fourteenth Amendments have never been thought to give absolute protection to every individual to speak whenever or wherever he pleases, or to use any form of address in any circumstances that he chooses. No individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words on appellant's jacket as a direct personal insult. [p21] Finally, in arguments before this Court, much has been made of the claim that Cohen's distasteful mode of expression was thrust upon unwilling or unsuspecting viewers, and that the State might therefore legitimately act as it did in order to protect the sensitive from otherwise unavoidable exposure to appellant's crude form of protest. The ability of government, consonant with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in other words, dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner.
[p19] Appellant's conviction, then, rests squarely upon his exercise of the "freedom of speech" protected from arbitrary governmental interference by the Constitution, and can be justified, if at all, only as a valid regulation of the manner in which he exercised that freedom, not as a permissible prohibition on the substantive message it conveys. There is, as noted above, no showing that anyone who saw Cohen was, in fact, violently aroused, or that appellant intended such a result. While this Court has recognized that government may properly act in many situations to prohibit intrusion into the privacy of the home of unwelcome views and ideas which cannot be totally banned from the public dialogue, at 738.