striking down a statute making it unlawful for a person to harass, annoy or alarm another by "abusive or obscene words or gestures in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response," id. at 611, on the ground that no historical exception existed to exclude such speech from the protections of Article I, section 8
Summary of this case from City of Eugene v. LeeAugust 8, 1984.
striking down a statute making it unlawful for a person to harass, annoy or alarm another by "abusive or obscene words or gestures in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response," id. at 611, on the ground that no historical exception existed to exclude such speech from the protections of Article I, section 8
Summary of this case from City of Eugene v. Leeindicating that preservation rule in Falk did not apply to party that bore burden of proof
Summary of this case from Peiffer v. HoytFull title:PETITIONS FOR REVIEW
Court:Oregon Supreme Court
Date published: Aug 8, 1984
They note that robbery in the second degree does not contain, as an element, the requirement that the victim…
State v. BaccalaThis context based view is a logical reflection of the way the meaning and impact of words change over time.…