Cox v. Louisiana

In public forums, Cox I affirmed the use of certain prerequisites, such as violence or the threat of violence or fighting words, to establish a true breach of peace. The Court reaffirmed that speech which merely produces discussion, arouses, disquiets, or angers is constitutionally protected. The Court also confirmed the duty of states or municipalities to assure the safety of its public places. Goldberg stated that authorities can "call a halt to a meeting which originally peaceful, becomes violent . . . set reasonable limits for assemblies. . . and then order them dispersed." Cox II reiterated that a state has a legitimate interest in protecting its judicial system from demonstrations near a courthouse which are designed to influence the administration of justice.

The above standards largely governed public order cases which followed. Near the end of the twentieth century, the Court continued to face questions of how far government may restrict the speech, manner, and place of protests. Civil rights, religion, and foreign policy dominated First Amendment litigation. Abortion became a public forum protest issue in the 1990s with free speech claimed by anti-abortion demonstrators. On the other hand, pro-choice proponents were concerned with guaranteeing individuals free access to abortion clinics without undue interference and pressure. In sum, the Cox standard still persisted holding that government can regulate speech in public places. But any restrictions cannot be based on the content of the speech, must be narrowly applied, must serve a significant government interest, and must leave other means available for the speech to occur. A clear message from Coxwas that freedom of speech, though of utmost importance, was not absolute.