[1.]If possible Paraphrasing is better than quoting. You might argue, for example, that the obscenity exclusion doesn’t include ordinary vulgarities (even those that are occasionally called “obscenities” in common language). Cohen v. California This is the “Fuck the Draft” case. It has some wonderful language.
It is not an obscenity or abuse case. To give rise to the States’ wider power to ban obscene expressions, it must be in a significant way erotic. The idea that Cohen’s vulgar allegation to the Selective Service System could conjure such psychic stimulation cannot be supported.
It can be cited directly as:
Expression must express a significant, sexually charged meaning in order to qualify as “obscene”. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 20 (1971).
One paraphrase is:
Only obscenity exclusions apply to material that is erotic and not vulgarities.
is not as effective. Quotations are more persuasive than paraphrases, and have a verisimilitude that makes them seem real.
Yes, it is possible, but sometimes there aren’t any good quotes in the original. Even if the case is really good for you, that doesn’t mean I should say so. Quotations of legal holdings are not always enough. You may need to analogize your facts with the precedent (for example, in the few sentences that follow the). Cohen Quote and Citation Always look out for good quotes.
[2.]In general, Use good quotations in your text.
Expression must express a significant, sexually charged meaning in order to qualify as “obscene”. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 20 (1971).
It is more than
Check out Cohen v. California403 U.S. 15, 20, (1971) (to be considered obscene, expressions must be made in a significant manner, erotic, or both; words that are “vulgar” don’t qualify).
It’s better than being redundant
Only obscenities that are erotic or vulgarity-related fall under the Obscenity Exclusion. Check out Cohen v. California403 U.S. 15, 20, (1971) (“obscene” means “expression must in some way be erotic”, not “vulgar” words.
It is important to note that this applies “generally speaking”. Parentheticals are useful when, for example, you already have a quote within the text and are citing cases. However, you should keep your best material in parentheses.
[3.]You can, of course. Good quotes shouldn’t be hidden further in footnotes. Find out more about footnotes by clicking here. Footnotes, remember? They are your Siberia.
[4.]It is not an easy call but it seems to me that this would be a good choice. frame your quotes as legal facts, e.g.,
Expression must express a significant, sexually charged meaning in order to qualify as “obscene”. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 20 (1971).
They were not meant to be statements of what a judge had said (e.g.
Supreme Court ruled that “obscene expression” must have a significant meaning and be erotic. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 20 (1971).
This argument flows better and is more persuasive, in general.
Philosophers may tell you the second approach is more correct. They might not argue that “to be obscene” refers to a specific fact. But, rather, it’s about the words of an authoritative body. However, I believe it’s reasonable and useful in briefs for you to make use of the legal fiction “the law” exists. You’re not reporting on it.
The argument for the “The Supreme Court has held …” locution is that it immediately signals the authority for the proposition, and I see that point. It’s better to make your legal statement and have the citation show the authority weight (which will be obvious to the judge who read your brief).
[5.]Quoting is an important skill. Do not overquote. The precedent (or statute or other authority) will often have material that’s irrelevant to your case; generally speaking, you should edit that out—so long as you can candidly do so—and focus just on the material that’s on point. So, in my opinion,
Expression must express a significant, sexually charged meaning in order to qualify as “obscene”. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 20 (1971).
Is better than the long quote
“Whatever other means may be required to grant the States a wider power to ban obscene expressions, they must not be in a significant manner erotic.” That cannot be possible.[, for instance, a]A vulgar reference to the Selective Service System could conjure such psychic stimulation in anyone who is likely to confront Cohen’s crudely defaced jacket. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 20 (1971).
Omissions, bracketed modifications, and excerpts from clauses instead of sentences or paragraphs could raise suspicions that you are quoting outside of context. But on balance it’s usually better to run that risk rather than distract the reader with irrelevant or even just tangential material from the original.