In Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), the defendant's display of the words "F--- the Draft" on the back of his jacket were determined not fighting words. 403 U.S. at 20-22. The court determined "no individual actually or likely to be present could reasonably have regarded the words on Cohen's jacket as a direct personal insult." Id. at 20. The court explained that fighting words must be directed at someone in particular. Id. The defendant was charged with disturbing the peace for wearing a jacket in the Los Angeles County Courthouse bearing the words "fuck the draft" which were plainly visible. The language of the disturbing the peace statute under which the defendant was charged was substantially the same as I.C. 18-6409. The Court in Cohen concluded that the defendant's conviction violated his right to freedom of expression. Cohen, 403 U.S. at 26. In Cohen, the defendant's conviction clearly rested upon the offensiveness of the words used to convey his message to the public. In Cohen v. California, the defendant was prosecuted for disturbing the peace for wearing a jacket bearing the words "Fuck the Draft." He was charged with violating a portion of California's disturbing the peace statute--nearly identical to the Idaho statute at issue here--which subjected to punishment a person "who maliciously and willfully disturbs the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person, by loud or unusual noise, or by tumultuous or offensive conduct . . . ." The Court answered in the negative, holding that the conviction, which "clearly rests upon the asserted offensiveness of the words Cohen used to convey his message," could not stand. Id. at 18. The Court rejected the notion that a state may criminalize speech merely because it includes distasteful language: "Much has been made of the claim that Cohen's distasteful mode of expression was thrust upon unwilling or unsuspecting viewers, and that the state might therefore legitimately act as it did in order to protect the sensitive from otherwise unavoidable exposure to appellant's crude form of protest. Of course, the mere presumed presence of unwitting listeners or viewers does not serve automatically to justify curtailing all speech capable of giving offense. . . . The ability of government, consonant with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in other words, dependant upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner. Any broader view of this authority would effectively empower a majority to silence dissidents simply as a matter of personal predilections." Id. at 20 . The Cohen court also made it clear that use of this type of vulgar expression cannot be prosecuted as an obscenity case. "Whatever else may be necessary to give rise to the States' broader power to prohibit obscene expression, such expression must be, in some significant way, erotic." Cohen, 403 U.S. at 20. In sum, the defendant was convicted under a California breach of the peace statute prohibiting a disturbance of the peace by offensive conduct for walking through a courthouse corridor wearing a jacket bearing the words "F--- the Draft" in a place where women and children were present. Id. 16. The United States Supreme Court held that the conviction could not be justified either upon a theory that the quoted words were inherently likely to cause violent reaction or upon the assertion that the states may properly remove such an offensive word from the public vocabulary. Id. 25. The Supreme Court determined that the states may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the "simple public display involved of the single four-letter expletive a criminal offense." Id. 26.