How could one jacket change the meaning of the First Amendment forever? A 19-year-old man walked into a courthouse in California carrying a message that many people found offensive. He wasn't giving a speech. He wasn't leading a protest. He wasn't threatening anyone. He was simply walking through a public hallway. But that one moment would eventually reach the United States Supreme Court [music] and become one of the most important free speech cases in American history. His name was Paul Robert Cohen. The year was 1968. America was deeply divided over the Vietnam War. Young men were being drafted into the military service and protests against the war were happening across the country. Paul Cohen was a young department store worker who opposed the military draft. On April 26th, 1968, Cohen went to the Los Angeles County Courthouse to testify as a witness in an unrelated case. He walked through the courthouse wearing a jacket with a political message criticizing the draft. The message contained a four-letter word that many people considered offensive. But there's an important detail that is often misunderstood. Paul Cohen did not wear the jacket inside the courtroom. Before entering the courtroom, he removed the jacket, folded it, and carried it with him. He respected the courtroom and did not display the message while court was in session. After leaving the courtroom and returning to the courthouse hallway, a police officer saw the jacket and arrested him. The reason the words on the jacket, there was no claim come and threaten anyone. There was no claim he caused a fight. There was no claim he disrupted court proceedings in any way. He was arrested because the government believed the message on his jacket was offensive enough to be illegal. California charged him with disturbing the peace. He was convicted and he was sentenced to 30 days in jail. At that moment, Paul Cohen was not trying to become a symbol of free speech. Years later, he explained that he was mainly trying to avoid spending a month in jail. But his case raised a much bigger question. Can the government punish someone simply because their political message is offensive? Cohen's attorney, Melville B. Nimmer, understood the case was about much more than just one jacket. It was about the power of government. If officials could punish one person because they dislike the words on his clothing, where would that power stop? The case eventually made its way to the United States Supreme Court. On June 7th, 1971, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Cohen v. California. The decision was extremely close. Five justices ruled in Cohen's favor. Four justices disagreed. One vote. That was the difference. If one justice had changed sides, one of the most important First Amendment decisions in American history could have gone the other way. Justice John Marshall Harlland II wrote the majority opinion. The court held that California could not make Cohen's peaceful expression a crime simply because people found the message offensive. Justice Harland wrote one of the most famous lines in Supreme Court history. One man's vulgarity is another's lyric. The court recognized that the First Amendment protects more than polite or popular speech. It protects speech that challenges people, speech that creates disagreement, speech that makes people uncomfortable. The majority explained that the government cannot be given the power to decide which political messages are acceptable and which ones are too offensive to be heard. But four justices disagreed. Their arguments are important because understanding both sides helps explain why this case was so difficult. Justice Harry Blackman wrote the main descent. He believed Cohen's conduct was offensive, inappropriate, especially because it occurred in a courthouse. His concern was not that all offensive speech should be banned. Instead, he believed the government had a legitimate interest in maintaining order and respect inside a courthouse setting. Chief Justice Warren Bergher joined Justice Blackman's descent along with Justice Hugo Black. Justice Byron White also disagreed with the majority and joined parts of the [music] descent. The dissenting justices believed this was not simply a case about an idea or political viewpoint. [music] They believed it involved the government's ability to regulate offensive conduct in a specific place. The majority saw the danger differently. They believed allowing the government to punish speech because people found it offensive created a power that could eventually be used against many different viewpoints. After the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, Paul Cohen returned to the trial court to have his conviction dismissed, even asked for the jacket back. He never received it. The original jacket disappeared after being held as evidence, and no one knows what happened to it. For decades after the case, Paul Robert Cohen lived a private life. He did not become a politician. He did not become a professional activist. He did not seek fame. In rare interviews years later, Cohen explained that many people misunderstood him and the case. He said he never expected to become a famous name in constitutional law. He explained that he was not trying to create a movement. He described himself as patriotic and said he believed in protecting constitutional rights. He even admitted that he was not someone who regularly used profanity and had mixed feelings about becoming associated with offensive language. But over time, he came to believe the Supreme Court made the right decision, not because the word on the jacket was important, but because the principle was important. The government should not be allowed to decide which political messages Americans are allowed to express peacefully. And more than 50 years later, the question raised by Paul Robert Cohen still matters because the First Amendment was never meant to protect only speech that is comfortable or popular. It was created to protect the ability of ordinary people to peacefully speak, protest, criticize, and ask their government for change. And today, I'm just one person standing on a sidewalk exercising that same first amendment right. The messages on my signs may be uncomfortable for some people. Some people may agree with them, some people may disagree with them. But that is exactly what the First Amendment protects. The right to peacefully express a message without the government deciding which opinions are acceptable and which ones are not. My purpose is not to create conflict. My purpose is to start a conversation and [music] advocate for two changes to every state law that I believe would strengthen transparency, accountability, and trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve. First, police body cameras and vehicle cameras should record continuously from the beginning of an officer shift until the end of that shift. No muting, no turning the cameras off during a shift. A complete and accurate record protects everyone, the public and law enforcement officers. Second, constitutional rights training should be mandatory for all law enforcement officers every month during the first 5 years of service. After 5 years, annual refresher training should be required. If an officer receives a sustained complaint involving constitutional rights, that officer should be returned to monthly constitutional rights training for a period of one year. Protecting constitutional rights is not a one-time lesson. It is a core duty of law enforcement and requires ongoing education, accountability, and reinforcement. Paul Cohen never expected that a jacket in a courthouse hallway would become part of American history. He was [music] just one person who chose to use his voice. And today, I'm doing the same thing peacefully, using the rights protected by the Constitution to bring attention to issues I believe matter. Because freedom of speech is not tested when everyone agrees. It is tested when people disagree. It is tested when the message is unpopular. [music] It is tested when people are offended. And that is why Cohen v. California still matters today.