Norwell v. City of Cincinnati

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a speaker’s subjective motivation was not relevant to whether his speech qualified as “abusive language or fighting words”
• holding that “one is not to be punished for nonprovoea-tively voicing his objection to what he obviously felt was a highly questionable detention by a police officer”
• holding that “one is not to be punished for nonprovocatively voicing his objection to what he obviously felt was a highly questionable detention by a police officer”
• holding that Page 811 \one is not to be punished for nonprovocatively voicing his objection to what he obviously felt was a highly questionable detention by a police officer\
• holding that an individual's arrest was unlawful, as an individual “is not to be punished for nonproactively voicing his objection to what he obviously felt was a highly questionable detention by a police officer”
• suggesting speech qualifies as intimidation when it is “intended to create a pervasive fear in victims that they are a target of violence” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).