County bans clothing with "disruptive or inflmmatory language or content" in County buildings

[Howard Wasserman]

Is Cohen v. California still good law? If so, this cannot be valid, at least in the main run of cases. Granted, that case analyzed outside the public forum doctrine, which had not yet assumed its central place. But it seems to be identical--disruptive or inflammatory language in a county building. This actually seems more blatant, since it is a direct regulation of speech, rather than a neutral law applied to speech.


Howard M. Wasserman
Associate Professor of Law
FIU College of Law
University Park, RDB 2065
Miami, Florida  33199
(305) 348-7482
(786) 417-2433
howard.wasserman at fiu.edu
Faculty Page:http://law.fiu.edu/faculty/faculty_wasserman.htm
SSRN Author Page: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/results.cfm?RequestTimeout=50000000
________________________________________
From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene [VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu]
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 4:34 PM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: County bans clothing with "disruptive or inflmmatory language or       content" in County buildings

    Greene County, Missouri is banning "all individuals" from "wearing clothing, apparel, or other accessories containing disruptive or inflmmatory language or content" in County buildings.  Constitutionally permissible regulation in a nonpublic forum, or unconstitutionally viewpoint-based or vague?

    Eugene