I see a clear difference between simply eavesdropping on a conversation on a public space and purposefully using technology to tap a telephone call. I think that a textualism approach to the constitution in this case is challenging due to the advancements in technology that have happened since the writing of the constitution.

Hello texualism!

is there a difference between being overheard and being recorded?

What does the constitution think about people being non consensually filmed in a public field and that being used in court?

This makes so much sense! Of course if you find out through the investigation that the suspect is doing bad stuff, you are going to concede that the prior suspicion had due cause.

This argument makes no sense. Of course they didn't burst into the telephone booth, that doesn't give them to the right to listen to any calls.

The difference between a general "right to privacy" and what the court argues is outlined in the 4th amendment is very interesting to me. What privacy does the 4th amendment protect and from who does it protect citizens? The government can't invade our privacy, but can other citizens? What does this mean about private investigators?

This is exactly what I was thinking about the distinction based on a type of speech as being classified as "outrageous"

This guy is literally just throwing a hissy fit, oh my goodness

This reminds me of the concept of "Marketplace of ideas"

How does the idea of "emotional distress" apply to other free speech cases? I am thinking about things like hate speech, specifically in Snyder V. Phelps (1992)

Strict scrutiny

This reminds me of the argument about how nothing can send the exact same message as burning the flag....Here they are saying the same is true of the word "Fuck"?

Tower of Babble?

captives is a crazy word to use here, especially when making a pro free speech argument. It implies that in order for us to maintain free speech we as member of society are losing some kind of freedom?

Interesting how Harlan allows his own opinions on the jacket to slip into his opinion here, despite writing the opinion in favor of Cohen.

This case is about fish! (basically saying that only certain things can count as "tangible evidence" in a trial)

When they talk about "offensiveness" are they talking about the words themselves (the use of expletives like "fuck") or the ability of others to take offense to the meaning of the words?

Remonstrance - a forcefully reproachful protest.

I am confused. Does this law not also offer reimbursement opportunities for those attending private institutions other than catholic schools...such as schools for profit or schools of other religions?

I struggle with why he thinks this question must be asked, when it doesn't have to be asked in the other scenarios he brings up. Why does it matter what the school is if the check is to blanketly support children's transportation to education? (just food for thought)

Neutrality in this situation is incredibly hard to define.

I find the tension between not using laws to aid the practice of religion and making sure laws don't prevent or discourage this practice to be very interesting. It is like walking on a tight rope, where on either side there is a disregard to the 1st amendment in one way or the other.

I think it is interesting to think about how this "indignation" is connected to the feelings of indignation around the taxation without representation which led directly to the revolutionary war. When considering the historical context of the constitution it is important to keep in mind not just the thoughts and concerns of the framers, but also the ways that the historical context was effecting public opinion.

I think that the choice to reference and then proceed to examine the constitution through the eyes of the framers in the time it was written, here is very interesting. This reminds me of discussions we have had about the different ways justices can interpret the constitution and specifically the originalism interpretation, which has been common throughout judicial history.