Brown v. Oklahoma

Background

A man invited to present the Black Panther viewpoint at a political meeting was prosecuted in Oklahoma for the language he used at that event. The State convicted him under a state statute that the Court describes as considerably broader than the statute in a related case. He appealed, the Supreme Court took the case, and the Court granted permission to proceed without paying fees while considering whether recent free-speech decisions affect his conviction.

Reasoning

The Court vacated the judgment and sent the case back to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals for reconsideration in light of Cohen v. California and Gooding v. Wilson, two recent free-speech decisions. The opinion notes Oklahoma courts have not narrowly interpreted the state statute and that the statute is broader than the one in another case. One Justice concurred, emphasizing that the charged language occurred at a political meeting where the audience might have expected provocative speech, which affects how the law should be applied.

Real world impact

The decision requires lower courts to re-evaluate similar prosecutions for profanity or abusive language under the newer free-speech standards. Political speakers, demonstrators, and others prosecuted for provocative language in public may obtain rehearings or see convictions vacated. This action is not a final ruling on guilt or innocence; it sends the case back for the state court to apply the federal free-speech decisions.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurring Justice agreed with vacating and remanding but stressed the broader statute and the political meeting context. Two Justices filed dissents that are noted in the opinion but not explained in the Court’s brief order.