From: Rick Knighton Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2022 11:08 AM To: 'Kenneth Dominic' <kendominic@me.com> Subject: RE: EXTERNAL EMAIL : Motion In my case, the plaintiffs argued that Norman's ordinance is unconstitutional because it is not limited to "fighting words." Citing the Tenth Circuit's decision in Cannon v. City and County of Denver, 998 F.2d 867, 873 (10th Cir. 1993), the plaintiffs argue that "fighting words" are limited to epithets (1) directed at the person of the hearer, (2) inherently likely to cause a violent reaction, and (3) playing no role in the expression of ideas. See Cannon, 998 F.2d 867, 873 (10th Cir. 1993). We argued that Cannon is distinguishable because the court's analysis was limited to "fighting words" - i.e., in footnote 3 the court observed that the broad statement of the defendants' position submitted on appeal conflicted with defendants' position before the trial court. We also noted that the Supreme Court's decision in Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S. Ct. 766, 86 L. Ed. 1031 (1942), identifies the following classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise and Constitutional problem: "the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words-those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." 315 U.S. at 572, 62 S. Ct. at 769. We also cited the Tenth Circuit's decision in Oney v. Okla. City, 120 F.2d 861 (10th Cir. 1941). The ordinance at issue in Oney prohibited, "the use of violent, abusive, or insulting language and the display of insulting, profane, or abusive emblems, flags, or devices calculated to cause a breach of the peace; and the uttering, publication, circulation, or distribution of any words or language casting contumelious reproach or profane ridicule on God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Holy Scripture, or the Christian or any other religion, calculated to cause a breach of the peace." 120 F.2d at 865. The court determined that on its face, the ordinance is "plainly directed against actions calculated to cause a breach of the peace and disturb public order. Its object is to prevent the inciting of violence." Id. The plaintiffs argued that Oney isn't applicable because it was decided in 1942. We pointed out that Cannon, Chaplinsky, and Oney cite Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213, 128 A.L.R. 1352 (1940). Cantwell was decided in 1940. Thus, the question isn't the date an opinion was issued; rather, it's whether the decision is still good law. Regarding language, your ordinance is similar to ours. Our ordinance prohibits disturbing the peace of another by (1) [v]iolent, obstreperous, or improper conduct or carriage which in its common acceptance is calculated, or where the natural consequence is to cause an assault, battery or other breach of the peace; [or] (2) [u]nseemly, obscene, offensive, insulting or abusive language which in its common acceptance is calculated, or where the natural consequence is, to cause an assault, battery, or other breach of the peace[.] Rickey J. Knighton II | Assistant City Attorney | City of Norman 201 West Gray | P.O. Box 370 | Norman, Oklahoma 73070 ' 405.217.7700 | 6 405.366.5425 | * rick.knighton@normanok.gov<mailto:rick.knighton@normanok.gov> | þ www.normanok.gov<http://www.normanok.gov/> This e-mail is the property of the City Attorney's office, City of Norman, Oklahoma, and the information contained in this e-mail is protected by the attorney-client and/or the attorney work product privilege. It is intended only for the use of the individual named above and the privileges are not waived by virtue of this having been sent by e-mail. If the person actually receiving this message or any other reader of the message is not the named recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us and return the original message. From: Kenneth Dominic <kendominic@me.com<mailto:kendominic@me.com>> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2022 10:34 AM To: Rick Knighton <Rick.Knighton@NormanOK.gov<mailto:Rick.Knighton@NormanOK.gov>> Subject: EXTERNAL EMAIL : Motion Mark Henricksen. Kenneth L. Dominic Attorney at Law 12301 Kingsgate Drive Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73170 Office: (405) 620-6013 The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2512. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or by replying to the message and deleting it and all of its attachments from your computer. This information does not form an attorney-client relationship and receipt of this communication by a non intended party does not waive any attorney-client privilege.