Tedford Court Cases 2

Hosty v. Carter (2005)

7th Circuit held that Hazelwood might be extended to a state university

Hill v. Colorado (2000)

A Colorado statute made it unlawful for any person within 100 feet of the entrance to any health care facility to knowingly approach within 8 feet of another person without that person's consent. Antiabortion protestors challenged this law saying it was overbroad, vague and constituted prior restraint on speech (Justice Stevens counterargued all three of these points). The Supreme Court upheld the statute, saying that Colorado's premise that one must "knowingly approach" was much easier to comply with than NY's "floating bubble.

Burstyn v. Wilson (1952)

After New York revoked the license for a film considered to be sacrilegious, the Supreme Court reversed the New York Courts' decision, saying that states could not censor a communication simply on the ground of its being irreligious. This case makes clear that blasphemy is not a constitutional basis for the suppression of ideas in the U.S. It also explicitly reverses the decision in Mutual Film v. Ohio Industrial Commission (which declared that film did not merit the protection of the 1st Amendment), and announced that liberty of expression by means of motion pictures is guaranteed... 1st time Court held that movies are protected as speech under 1st Amendment.

Schneider v. Laird (1972)

Also denied review. Post commander had prohibited circulation of an underground newspaper on a military base because he believed it undermined morale and discipline.

U.S. v. Reidel (1971)

Although a person could safely possess erotica at home, state and federal governments could continue to prohibit its sale, mailing, or other dissemination.

Kingsville Independent School District v. Cooper (1980)

Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit did not cite the Pickering Case, the balancing test used was similar. Balanced the 1st Amendment Rights of the teacher to choose a teaching method against the rights of a school district to control classroom speech, ruling in favor of the teacher.

Madsen v. Women's Health Center (1994)

Antiabortion protestors targeted both a clinic and the homes of those who worked there, so a state judge issued an injunction that prohibited picking and using sound application equipment within 300 ft. of staff residences. The Supreme Court ruled that the 300 foot zone was too large, but that a smaller, more focused area would be adequate to protect the homes. Court didn't clarify how large the zone should be. In this same case, protestors surrounded a women's clinic in Melbourne, FL and the Florida court mandated a 36 foot buffer zone around clinic property and prohibited chanting and displaying images observable. The Supreme Court found these mandates ok as it protected patients and staff of the clinic.

National Labor Relations Act/Wagner Act (1935)

Part of FDR's new deal. Extended the right of collective bargaining to organized labor and also established the National Labor Relations Board to hear complaints concerning unfair labor practices and to regulate union activities.

Pittman v Hutto (1979)

Penal authorities disapproved on the contents of a magazine published by inmates, so they suppressed it. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in Jones v. NC Prisoners' Labor Union, the circuit court allowed the ban to stand.

City of San Diego v. Roe (2004)

Police officer Roe was fired for not changing his sexually explicit Ebay profile after asked to do so. Supreme Court cited Pickering v. Board of Education and Connick v. Myers as instances where the court had balanced the interests of the employee as a citizen and the interests of the state as an employer. Ruled that the City of San Diego's interest prevailed in this instance.

International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee (1992)

Port Authority of NY and NJ banned repetitive solicitation of money or distribution of literature within LGA, JFK, and EWR airports. The Supreme Court upheld this ban, but just barely. A majority of five justices concluded the airport was not a public forum. The Court retained a majority for prohibiting solicitation, but was one vote short of a majority for banning leafleting, so now groups may distribute literature in airports but may be prohibited from soliciting funds. In this case and the US v. Kokinda case, other justices have trouble with the 3 standards of evaluation of a public space and call for a return to the standards of Grayned.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2004)

School Board passed a resolution mandating that students in 9th grade biology classes be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's theory, including intelligent design. U.S. district judge concluded that intelligent design is not a valid scientific theory as it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist and thus religious antecedents." The judge held that the school board's mandate violated the Penn Constitution which reflects the same concerns that the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution does.

"Motherf*cker cases" (1972)

Rosenfeld v. NJ, Brown v. Oklahoma, and Lewis v. City of New Orleans: Supreme Court vacated all three convictions and remanded the cases for reconsideration based on the Cohen and Gooding decisions. The pertinent question what whether or not the word "mother****er" tended to incite an immediate breach of peace.

West VA State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional for the compulsory flag salute of the public schools of Wet Virginia. Because the flag stood for an idea, and compelling a flag salute was to force a person symbollically to show support for that idea, the state regulation must fall.

Sala v. NY (1948)

The Supreme Court declared the Lockport, NY ordinance unconstitutional because it gave the chief of police discretion over who could use sound amplifying in public places. It ruled that under the police chief's discretion it sanctians a device for the suppression of free communication of ideas.

Frisby v. Schultz (1988)

The Supreme Court directly confronted the issue of residential picketing, deciding that a flat ban on such activity did not violate the First Amendment. In Brookfiled, Wisconsin, anitabortion demonstrators picketed the home of a doctor they believed to perform abortions. In response the town board said it was unlawful to picket in the town of Brookfield. Supreme Court upheld decision, determining that a narrowly focused law that prohibits picketing in front of a specific, targeted residence does not violate the First Amendment.

Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of NY v. Village of Stratton (2002)

The Supreme Court reaffirmed its position by rejecting a town ordinance prohibitinng canvassers from going onto private residential property without first securing a permit from the mayor's office. The Court said the ordinance was far too broad because it included all door-to-door canvassing from political activists to trick-or-treaters.

Kunz v. New York (1951)

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction because this case involved both content-based discretion by NYC authorities and vagueness in the law. Carl J. Kunz, a Baptist minister, was convicted of preaching in a public place without a permit. Kunz's initial permit had expired and he had applied for a renewal and was denied and proceeded to speak anyhow. The High Court noted that Kunz had a reputation of ridiculing other religions and that complaints had been lodged against him. But, since no disorderly conduct or breach of peace was involved and no appropriate standards by which to guide action, the Court overturned Kunz's conviction.

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham II (1969)

The Supreme Court reversed the conviction of civil rights leader Frde Shuttlesworth for parading in Birmingham without a permit as required by law. The Court said that the Birmingham ordinance in question lacked clarity and precision because it granted complete authority to the city making it a subjective ordinance left at the hands of each commissioner to interpret.

Beard v. City of Alexandria (1951)

The Supreme Court ruled that absolute prohibitions against noncommercial solicitation and the distribution of literature, as by political or religious groups, violate the First Amendment.

Townhill v. Alabama (1940)

The Supreme Court struct down and Alabama law banning labor picketing, reasoning that freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed by the Constitution embraces at least the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully all matters of public concern without previous restraint or fear of subsequent punishment.

Scheidler v. National Organization for Women I (2003)

This case addressed how extortion and racketeering laws apply to extreme forms of protest. In 1986 the NOW and two clinics that perform abortions filed a class action suit in federal district court against Pro-Life Action Network (Scheidler was a member of this group). The suit alledged that PLAN was trying to shut down clinics through a pattern of racketeering activity that included violence and threats of violence. PLAN conducted sit-ins in clinics, chained themselves to clinic doors, physically damaged clinics and physically attacked medical workers and patients. NOW charged the group with violating the 1946 Hobbs Act (prohibits interfering with commerce by threatening or commiting violence) and the 1970 Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act. The district court found PLAN guilty and the court of appeals upheld this conviction. By a vote of 8 to 1, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction saying that PLAN had not violated the Hobbs Act because extortion had not occurred, rather it was coercion.

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980)

This case concerns the authority of states to guarantee free-speech rights in private shopping centers, even though the Constitution does not. The California Supreme Court construed the California Constitution to require that shopping centers be open to expression and petition. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the California Court as it upheld state laws.

Lovell v. Griffin (1938)

Time, place, and manner regulations must be clear and narrowly drawn and be administered content-free and nondiscretionary manner.

Board of Regents of U. of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000)

U.S. Supreme Court overturned this decision, and ruled that the First Amendment permits a public university to charge its students an activity fee used to fund a program to facilitate extracurricular student speech if the program is "viewpoint neutral". The issue was remanded to the lower courts for reexamination.

Dash v. Commanding General (1971)

U.S. district court declared constitutional a Fort Jackson regulation that required permission prior to distributing printed materials or conducting public, open meetings on post. Supreme Court denied review.

Rosenbuerger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995)

UVA Appropriations Committee denied funding for printing of "Wide Awake" magazine, a magazine designed "to foster an atmosphere of sensitivity to and tolerance of Christian viewpoints."Supreme Court ruled that paying an outside contractor to print the magazine did not violate the separation of church and state, and said that failure to fund Wide Awake was viewpoint discrimination not allowed under the First Amendment. Justice O'Connor emphasized the unique circumstances of this case. She cited the Lamb's Chapel case, saying that the Establishment Clause does not compel the exclusion of religious groups from government benefit programs that are generally available to a braod class of participants. The dissenting opinion recognized that this was the first time in history that the Court was permitting direct funding of core religious activities by an arm of the state.

Kaplan v. California

Book with non-illustrated sexual content, argued only illustrations could be obscene. USSC says medium of expression was not defined and text only can still be obscenity. State and local standards can decide matters of prurience, and limiting to adults does not result in constitutional protection.

US v. Orito

George Orito shipped sexual materials across state borders by common carrier. Such interstae shipment is a crime. Neither importation nor interstate shipment of obscene materials is legal.

NAACP v. Button (1963)

In 1956 Virginia passes a law preventing the NAACP from soliciting clients to challenge the state's segregation policies. The Supreme Court said that the type of activity engaged in by the NAACP's Defense Fund was protected by the federal constitution against state interference. The Court emphasized the objectives of the NAACP in this case differ from those in which private disputes are resolved and in which solicitation of clients is prohibited. The Court concluded that the litigation and solicitation of it by public interest organizations such as the NAACP and ACLU are protected by the First Amendment.

Garcia v. Gray (1975)

In 1975 the Court let stand a court of appeals decision allowing the city of Artesia NM to ban all picketing before or about the residence or dwelling of any individual.

Colin v. Smith (1978)

In 1977 the National Socialist (Nazi) Party of America announced plans to demonstrate in the heavily Jewish Chicago suburb of Skokie, IL. Skokie's village responded by passing three ordinances designed to prevent the demonstrations. The ordinances were 1)a comprehensive parade permit regulation that applied to assembilies of more than 50 persons and required permit applicants to secure liability and property damage insurance totalling $350,000 2) a prohibition upon the dissemination of material that incites racial or religious hatred, with intent to incite such hatred and 3) a prohibition upon wearing military style uniforms by members of political parties during demonstration. Collin, the party's leader, applied for a permit and was denied. The U.S. District Judge declared the 3 ordinances unconstitutional. His ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court denied review. After winning the legal battle however, the National Socialists decided not to march in Skokie after all.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995)

In 1988 Margaret McIntyre wrote and distributed an anonymous leaflet opposing a proposed school tax levy in her community of Westerville, OH. The Ohio Election Commision fined McIntyre $100 for violating state law prohibiting anonymous campaign literature. The Ohio Supreme Court sustained the fine, but on appeal the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision on the grounds that anonymity is a shiled from the tyranny of the majority and thus protected under the First Amendment.

City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994)

In 1990 in Ladue, Missouri, Margaret Gilleo, who opposed U.S. involvement in the Persian Gulf War against Iraq, placed a sign in a window of her home that said "For Peace in the Gulf." Municipal authorities told her sign violated an ordinance against residential signs, so Gilleo filed a First Amendment challenge and won. Lower federal courts and Supreme Court found ordinance unconstitutional.

Pope v. Illinois

Serious value is to be determined by the reasonable person, rather than the average person applying to community standards. Therefore, the 3rd part of the Miller test is to be judged by a reasonable person, or someone who would find serious value in the material as a whole without regard to majority opinion in the community.

Feiner v. New York (1951)

Irving Feiner was arrested for violating a New York disorderly conduct law, after delivering a speech that urged African Americans to revolt against racial oppression. Supreme Court upheld this decision, and Justice Vinson asserted that Feiner's message had created a clear and present danger. Justices Black and Douglass disagreed. Black said that the police should make all reasonable efforts to protect the speaker in this case. So, speech that creates a clear and present danger of inciting to riot is not protected by the Constitution.

Grayned v. Rockford (1972)

Several Rockford, IL students who conducted a loud demonstration near a school while it was in session were convicted of violating a city ordinance that prohibited making a "noise or diversion" near a school during school hours. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court. Majority opinion was that reasonable time, place, and manner regulations that are content- neutral are often necessary to support significant government interests. "Compatible Use" doctrine

Street v. NY (1969)

Sidney Street, a black resident of Brooklyn, NY, burned a flag in anger after hearing over the radio that a sniper had wounded James Meredith, the first black person to attend the University of Mississippi. Street was arressted and convicted under the New York flag desecration statute that made it illegal to "mutilate, deface, defile...or cast contempt upon, either by words or act" and U.S. flag. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction because Street was convicted for the act he committed, including the words he said while burning the flag, and words are protected under the First Amendment.

Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico (1982)

Local board of education removed nine "objectionable" books from school library. Supreme Court returned the case to the district court to determine the motives for removing the books, which seemed to say that the First Amendment placed restrictions on the discretion of a school board to remove books from a school library.

Halter v. Nebraska (1907)

)- A brand of bottled beer offered for sale in Nebraska pictured a U.S. flag on the label. State officials moved to stop sale of the offending brew under a provision of the Nebraska Constitution that forbade the emblematic use of the national flag to advertise any product for sale. The U.S. Supreme Court commended the state's effort to teach patriotism by protecting the flag from misuse.

Boring v. Buncombe County Board of Education (1998)

)- A high school drama teacher, Boring, produced an inappropriate play that after production, the principal censored parts of the content before it was advanced to a state-wide competition. Boring was demoted and sued arguing her 1st amendment rights. The district court ruled against the teacher and on an appeal, the court help the ruling that the school system, not the teacher has control over public school curricula and it deemed the play inappropriate, citing Hazelwood

Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995)

)- In 1992 the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, the group authorized by the city to plan the St. Patrick's Day Parade, refused a place in the parade to the Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, an organization of openly gay persons of Irish heritage. GLIB filed suit in the state court on the grounds of discrimination and the Massachusetts trial court ordered the inclusion of GLIB. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed on the grounds that the Constituion protects the spondors of a parade who cannot be compelled to include a contingent that dilutes or alters the message being communicated by that parade.

Kincaid v. Gibson (1994)

1994-KSU confiscated all copies of the yearbook because it reflected poorly on the institution based on its' color and lack of captions. Editor and student Kincaid argued that refusal to distribute violated the first amendment. District court ruled against students under Hazelwood rule. After several educational groups petitioned the decision, an appeal was granted and the court decided it had erred in applying Hazelwood rule and that the yearbook was a limited public forum protected by 1st amendment and the confiscation was arbitrary and unreasonable

Post v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin (1991)

2 years after Michigan case, court declared unconstitutional a similar hate-speech rule from the University of Wisconsin, on the grounds that it was overbroad and vague. The court noted that Chaplinsky was limited to words spoken in direct confrontation that were likely to cause an immediate breach of the peace, and the university rule exceeded the scope of this requirement.

Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)

2 years were added to the maximum sentence for aggravated battery under a Wisconsin law that provided an extra penalty for crimes motivated by bigotry. The U.S. Supreme Court declared the penalty-enhancement law constitutional. Justice Rehnquist distinguished this case from R.A.V. v. St. Paul by saying that the ordinance struck down in R.A.V. was explicitly directed at expressions, whereas this ordinance is aimed at conduct.

Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association (1983)

A Teacher's union, PEA won a union election to become the official representative of teachers in the Metropolitan School District of Perry Township, Indiana. Collective bargaining agreement said that PEA and only PEA would have access to the interschool mail system and teacher's mailboxes. The PLEA, a rival union, entered federal court, arguin PEA's preferential to the internal mail system violated the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The district court decided that exclusive access shoul be reversed, but the Supreme Court reviewed and said that exclusive access policy did not violate the Constitution. This case prompted Justice White's 3-part analysis of the classifications of public property: 1) Quintessential public forums (ex. Parks, squares, streets, sidewalks) 2) Public Property that the State has opened for express activity (auditorium of municipal building, meeting rooms on college campuses) 3) Public property that is not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication Mail systems fell into the third category and therefore were not necessarily protected by the Constitution.

Lawrence v. Texas

A Texas law classifying consensual, adult homosexual intercourse as illegal sodomy violated the privacy and liberty of adults to engages in private intimate conduct under the 14th Amendment. Texas state courts reverse and charges dismissed. Called "a Frankenstein's monster of judicial activism" Judge Lancaster said that obscenity laws are unconstitutional.

Edwards v. SC (1963)

A group of 187 black high school and college students protested racial discrimination in SC by holding a peaceful demonstration in an open area of the state house grounds while the state legislature was in session. Police broke up the demonstration and charged students with breach of peace. Trial court found guilty, SC court upheld convictions, but U.S. Supreme Court reversed the state court on the grounds that the circumstances of the protest reflect an exercise of basic constitutional rights. The Court decided the demonstration was a compatible use of the state house grounds and thus deserved the protection of the Constitution.

Southworth v. Grebe (1998)

A group of conservative students at the University of Wisconsin sued to sop the allocation of mandatory student fee funds to 18 campus organizations engaged in political or ideological activities. U.S. district court and court of appeals agreed with plaintiffs, saying that the 1st Amendment includes the right not to be required to subsidize the speech of another.

R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992)

A group of white teenagers burned a cross in the yard of a black family that had moved into an all-white neighborhood. Supreme Court ruled that the St. Paul ordinance did not prohibit fighting words in general, but only specific types of fighting words, such as those based on race, color, or religion. Therefore, the prohibition amounts to content discrimination. Many justices felt the ordinance to be overbroad. This case foreclosed the possibility of any broad law against hate speech in the near future. First Amendment forbids content discrimination.

Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006)

Ceballos filed a civil rights suit against LA County District Attorney alleging he was being punished for speaking out on a matter of public concern. Court upheld his demotion saying that the 1st Amendment does not protect every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job. Justice Kennedy distinguished between public employees speaking as citizens and speaking as part of their official responsibilities. Dissenting judges argued for applying the Pickering balancing test

Healy v. James (1972)

Central Connecticut State College rejected students' attempt to form a local chapter of Students for a Democratic Society. Supreme Court ruled that the chapter should be officially recognized. Justice Powell stated that the action of the administration was a form of prior restraint upon the students' 1st Amendment rights, and said the college may not restrict speech simply because it finds the views expressed by any group to be abhorrent.

United States v. 12 200 Ft. Reels of Super 8mm Film

Citizen tried to bring sexually explicit tapes across the Mexican border into the US, and border patrol stopped him. Chief Justice Berger agreed citing Stanley v. GA's decision concerning private property, and saying it does not protect going abroad and bringing material back.

Cohen v. California (1971)

Cohen wore a jacket that said "**** the Draft" into a county courthouse and was arrested for offensive conduct. Justice Harlan reversed Cohen's conviction, asserting that much linguistic expression serves a dual communicative function: to convey ideas and to express emotions. Th Court narrowed the definition of "fighting words" stated in Chaplinsky ot words that actually are directed to another in such a way as to create a danger of breach of peace.

Buckly v. American Constitutional Law Foundation (1999)

Colorado was one of 24 states that allowed voters to circumvent the legislature and change the law through a petition process. This process was regulated by six restrictions: 1)age 2) time period 3)affidavit 4)registration 5))badge 6)disclosure. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the first 3 restrictions were Constitutional, but that the last 3 were not because they significantly inhibit communication with voters about proposed political change.

Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972)

Concerned the distribution of anti-Vietnam War handbills inside an enclosed mall. The parties faced a panel of judges considerably changed since the Logan Valley case. The Court ruled that the Constitution did not give communicators the right to distribute handbills inside a private mall. Justice Powell played a chief role in this shifting decision.

Collin v. Smith (1978)

Court ruled that the Nazis had a constitutional right to march in Stokie, Illinois.

General Media Communications, Inc. v. Perry (1997)

Congress banned the sale or rental of sexually explicit material on military bases. Court of Appeals said that military bases are not public forums and that government may restrict so long as the restriction was not a matter of viewpoint discrimination. Court denied review, thus permitting the ban.

People v. Sutherland (1974)

Conviction appealed to Supreme Court who denied review of case. This case reveals that the justices were not willing to extend constitutional protection to flag burning as a means of nonverbal protest.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District (1969)

Court announced that the First Amendment is "available" to teachers and students in the school environment so long as the expression in question does not disrupt the educational process. Three school children wore black armbands to class to show their disapproval of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. After being suspended by school authorities, the young protestors challenged the suspension and eventual won their case in the Supreme Court. The Court upheld that First Amendment right of the children to express their views in a quiet, symbolic way. In regards to symbollic expression two conclusions can be drawn. 1) The Supreme Court does not recognize nonverbal communication as a form of speech protected by the Constitution, however, it has never said that symbolic expression receives the same degree of protection as does verbal expression. 2) One can infer that passive symbolic expression is similar to pure speech will receive a greater degree of protection by the courts than will symbollic conduct. The more "plus" to the symbollic expression, the less protection the Constitution provides. 3 students including Mary Beth Tinker wore black armbands in school to protest U.S. involvement in Vietnam War. The 3 students were suspended because they violated a recent school board policy against such expression. They argued their suspension in federal courts but both the federal court and the court of appeals dismissed the complaint. Justice Fortas of the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts decision stating that wearing the armband was a form of symbolic expression involving "primary 1st Amendment rights akin to pure speech". First time S.C. held that elementary and secondary school students had basic free-speech rights while attending schoolJustice Fortas created Tinker rule- students had first amendment rights as long as it did not disrupt classwork, invaded the rights of others or caused disorder

Secretary of Navy v. Huff (1980)

Court applied its findings in Glines in order to uphold the right of the Navy and Marine Corps to require military personnel on overseas bases to obtain permission in advance of circulating petitions within a base.

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)

Court declared unconstitutional a Louisiana law that required teaching the biblical account of creation in science classes that taught the theory of evolution.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Court further contracted students rights by allowing school authorities to exercise prior restraint over the contents of school-sponsored student newspaper... as long as restrictions had a valid educational purpose and were reasonable in achieving that purpose. Hazelwood High School newspaper, Spectrum, wrote 2 articles that the principal deemed inappropriate and censored the articles from being published. Kuhlmeier and other staff members sued the school district that this violated their first amendment rights. The lower court agreed that the student newspaper at a public school was a public forum protected by the First Amendment. The S.C. overturned the decision that the Tinker rule does not mean that the school needs to lend its name or promote student speech that they find inappropriate. However, this case also made is clear that to justify censorship, school officials must demonstrate that it serves a valid educational purpose. Courts held for the first time that public schools may impose some limits on what appears in student-sponsored publications.

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)

Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited teaching the theory of evolution in schools. Epperson taught evolution. The Court held that teh First Amendment prohibits a state from requiring, in the words of the majority opinion, "That teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma." This statue therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Carpenter v. South Dakota (1976)

Court of Appeals cited Procunier to allow prison officials to ban mail containing sexually explicit materials. Supreme Court denied review.

Rankin v. McPherson (1987)

Court overruled McPherson's dismissal for anti-Reagan remarks following his attempted assassination. Justice Marshall invoked the Pickering test, stressing that the comments in question concerned a public issue, not a personal matter.

Greer v. Spock (1976)

Court upheld regulations banning civilians from speaking, demonstrating, or passing out literature without permission on a military base. In the early 1970's several political candidates who were denied permission to speak on Fort Dix, NJ property submitted the regulation against partisan political speaking on the premise to a court test. In 1976 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the miltary authorities.

American Booksellers v. Hudnut (1985)

Courts rejected the "demeaning to women" law on constitutional grounds, in response to feminists' efforts to permit suits against those who disseminate pornography perceived as deaming to women.

Jamison v. Texas

Dallas authorities cited Davis to support their ban on the distribution of handbills on the city streets, but the Court rejected the Davis decision, thereby confirming the open-forum view announced by the Court in Hague v. CIO. Today these rulings remain. In sum, the Court supports the general principle that the Constitution requires that streets, parks, and similar public places be open for purposes of cumminication, although the use of these areas may be regulated in a nondiscriminatory manner in order to assure the public convenience and good order.

US v. O'Brien (1968)

David O'Brien was convicted in federal district court of burning his registration certificate (draft card) as a protest to the Vietnman war in violation of a federal law making it illegal to knowingly mutilate or destroy the document. The federal circuit court reversed the conviction on First Amendment grounds, accepted O'Brien's argument that his act was symbollic expression as protected by the Constitution. The Supreme Court disagreed and reinstated his conviction.

Miller v. California

Disseminating advertising brochures with sexually explicit illustrations. USSC vacated and remanded case back to CA. Changed Roth Test: removed "utterly worthless" requirement, defined "contemporary community standards" to mean state or local ones - not national ones, added whether the state law defines the content as patently offensive, added SLAPS - serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. SLAPS Test Allowed people to try to set up community standards. Supreme Court used this case to revise Roth test to make it easier for states to prosecute obscenity cases successfully. Said that states must spell out the type of sexual conduct they find obscene (thereby helping to avoid the charge of vagueness often leveled at Roth)

Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York (1997)

District Court in NY created a 15 foot buffer zone around entrances and patients entering abortion clinics which became a "floating bubble". The ruling allowed no more than 2 antiabortion counselors to enter into the bubble. If the patients refused to talk to the counselors, then the counselors had to cease and desist. The U.S. Court of Appeals upheld this injunction as did the Supreme Court, which supported the fixed buffer zone in front of the clinic entrance, but not the floating one around any patient entering the clinic.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

During the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, a group of about 100 demonstrators protesting against Reagan administration politices stages a "Republican War Chest Tour" of the city. After chanting political slogans and staging anti-nuclear war "die-ins" in front of the offices of several Dallas- based corporations, the demonstators marched to the Dallas City Hall, where one of the demonstrators, Gregory Lee Johnson, doused a U.S. flag in gas and set it on fire while the crowd chanted "America, the red, white, and blue, we spit on you."Johnson was charged under Texas law with the crime of desecrating a venerated object as protected by Texas Penal Code. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed Johnson's conviction on the grounds that his act was symbolic speech protected by the First Amenment. The Supreme Court ruled that flag burning as a means of symbolic political expression is protected by the Constitution. Justice Brennan saw that Texas had convicted Johnson in order to 1)prevent a breach of the peace and 2)to preserve the flag's symbolic value, and then pointed out that no breach of peace occurred, and so Johnson's conviction was overturned.

Regina v. Hicklin

English definition of obscenity emerged

Zykan v. Warsaw Community School Corp. (1980)

English teacher fired because of a controversy over course-related readings, and the Court of Appeals cited Supreme Court case Tinker to emphasize that teachers have constitutional rights in the classroom.

NY v. Ferber

Ferber was convicted of selling films showing children masturbating. He had violated the state's child pornography law, even though it was not legally obscene. Supreme court unanimously upheld his conviction, thereby establishing nonobscene child pornography as a new category of prohibited expression.

Paris Adult Theater I v. Slaton

Georgia courts find two sexy but nonexplicit movies were declared obscene. USSC made 4 points: consenting adults do not have privacy rights to make choices about sexy movies, prosecution does not present expert opinion on whether the content is obscene but the films are the best evidence of what they represent and this fulfills the burden of proof, censorship is permissible, and state laws may be more liberal but not more restrictive than the standards being announced.

Brown v. Glines (1980)

Glines was removed from active duty for giving a peition to circulate and get signatures protesting the Air Force grooming standards. Justice Powell cited Parker v. Levy to stress that the military is different from civilian society and that special controls are necessary. Military retained their right to communicate directly with members of Congress, but this right now did not extend to group petitions circulated on military bases.

Goldman v. Department of Defense (1986)

Goldman refused to stop wearing his yarmulke while in uniform. Court rejected his arguments, and Justice Rehnquist emphasized that military service demands subordination of individual interests to the needs of service.

Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001)

Good News Club requested use of the school cafeteria for a weekly meeting. After a review of the club's literature, attorneys for the school board denied the request. Supreme Court observed that the meeting was not scheduled during school hours and that it was not sponsored by the school, citing the Lamb's Chapel decision, held that denying access to school facilities amounted to viewpoint discrimination.

Hosty v. Carter (2005)

Governors State University Dean demanded that the articles in the student newspaper The Innovator had to be approved by her before being printed. The staff refused and in fear of not being paid, the printer did not want to ignore the dean and the publication was temporarily ceased. After 2 appeals the court ultimately determined the same editorial controls that justify high school publications extend to colleges based on Hazelwood

Cox v. Louisiana II (1965)

Group of civil rights protestors in LA were convicted under a state law that prevented picketing or parading near a courthouse with the intent of interfering with or impeding the administration of justice. The Court overturned the convictions on the grounds that the law had been improperly implied. The Court did however, uphold the law's constitutionality saying that outside a courthouse, especially when a trial is underway, is not a proper place for a protest or demonstration.

Adderly v. Florida (1966)

Harriet Louise Adderly, a civil rights protestor in Tallahassee, and about 200 other protestors entered the grounds of the county jail to show their disapproval of the arrest of fellow civil rights protestors who were being held in jail. They entered the jail without permission with the intent to surprise the officers inside. Adderly and 31 colleagues were convicted of violating a Florida trespass statute. Case was eventually appealed to U.S. Supreme Court, which by a 5 to 4 vote, sustained the convictions. Justice Black explained that for security purposes jails are not open to the publics. Demonstrating in public areas near a courthouse and on grounds of a jailhouse are examples of incompatible use and do not, therefore, have First Amendment protection.

Rosen v. US

Hicklin rule was first adopted.

City of Chicago v. Morales (1999)

In 1992 Chicago enacted a Gang Congregation Ordinace that prohibited criminal street gang members from loitering in any public place. The order also called for any persons to leave the public place if they thought someone else present was a gang member. A person disobeyed an officer's order to disperse. The Illinois Supreme Court rejected the ordinance because it was vague and an arbitrary restriction. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Illinois court. The ordinance was seen as unconstitutional because it was not clear and because it gave too much discretion to the police to decide when to order two or more people to disperse.

American Life League v. Reno (1995)

In 1994 U.S. Congress aproved the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act which provided penalties for anyone who tried to threaten or obstruct a patient's entry into a clinic. The American Life League challenged this law in court arguing that it violated the First Amendment and the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The U.S. Court of appeals rejected these arguments saying that FACE proscribed conduct which was not constitutionally protected expression

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware (1982)

In 1996 white elected officials of Claiborne County, MS refusted to respond in a constructive way to blacks' demands for racial equality and integration. The NAACP and black protestors launched a boycott against several white merchants in the area. White mechants sued the NAACP and the MS trial court agreed with the merchants, rejecteing the NAACP's First Amendments. The Mississippi Supreme Court sustained the damages award. In 1982 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the courts below, ruling that the nonviolent aspects of the appellant's activities were protected under the First Amendment.

US v. Kokinda (1990)

In August 1986 a political organization in Bowie, MD set up a table for solicitation and literature distribution on the sidewalk leading to the post office entrance. The table didn't block the post office, but was entirely on post office property, violating the federal rule that prohibits solicitation on postal premises. Volunteers refused to leave and were charged with solicitation. A federal magistrate found defendants guilty and the district court upheld this conviction, but the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed, declaring the sidewalk a public forum. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the court below and reinstated the conviction although there was much plurality within this decision.

Sutherland v. Illinois (1974) and Farrell v. Iowa (1974)

In each of these flag burning cases, the state courts found the defendents guilty of violating state laws against flag desecration.

Jones v. North Caroline Prisoners' Labor Union (1977)

In response to the formation of a society of prisoners within North Carolina's prison system, the state adopted strict regulations. Supreme Court upheld these regulations. Justice Rehnquist ruled that the regulations were reasonable when the rights of the prisoners were balanced against the legitimate needs and purposes of the penal system. Basically, forming and promoting an organization of prison inmates is not protected by the Constitution.

Virginia v. Black (2004)

In response to three instances of cross burning in VA, the Supreme Court upheld a VA law that prohibits burning a cross with intent to intimidate, but rejected that portion of the law that said that state prosecutors could presume that any such burning was done with the intent to intimidate. Basically, the court decided that some cross burning is protected by the 1st Amendment, and some is not.

Hudgens v. NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) (1976)

In this case, the Supreme Court completed the move away from First Amendment protection for the communication of opinion in private shopping centers. The Court declared that the Constitution did not grant union members the right to picket a retail store in a mall. Union members were advertising their strike against the Butler Shoe Co. by appearing in the mall. Relied heavily on the Llyod case to say that the shopping center owner is assumed the role of the controller. Public communicators should therefore be aware that people do not have a constitutional right to speak, demonstrate, etc on private property without the permission of the center owners unless the center communicator lives in a state like CA where state law allows for the right of free speech.

US v. Grace (1983)

Individuals were passing out leaflets and holding signs on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court building in D.C. U.S. stated that these activities were in violation of Title 40 of the U.S. Code, Section 13k, which prohibits the display of any flag, banner, or device, designed or adapted to birng into public notice any party, organization, or movement, inside the Supreme Court building or on its grounds, including public sidewalks around the building. The Surpreme Court unanimously declared the law unconstitutional as applied to the sidewalks but left open questions about grounds. Supreme Court said that peaceful use of sidewalks for purposes of expression didn't necessarily interfere with the work of the Court, so no compelling government interest was served by the regulation

Marsh v. Alabama (1946)

Jehovah's Witness Grace Marsh entered the town of Chickasaw, AL owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation, to distribute religious literature on the streets. An officer stopped Marsh on the grounds of company regulation against solicitation of any kind without a permit and told her she would not get a permit. She disobeyed the order to stop and was arrested and convicted under state law. The Supreme Court reversed Marsh's conviction favoring the First Amendment rights over property rights as applied to company towns.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)

Jehovah's Witness, Chaplinsky, was convicted in New Hampshire for speaking offensive and derisive language in public. Supreme Court Justice Frank Murphy upheld the conviction, ruling that the punishment for language that might cause a fight did not unreasonably restrict freedom of speech. This case divided expression into two categories: worthwhile speech and worthless speech. Fighting words, a type of worthless speech, is further divided into 2 subparts: foul language in general, and fight-provoking words. Landmark fighting words doctrine, elaboration of the reasoning expressed in Cantwell. Constitution does not protect language that inflicts injury on the sensibilities of others or tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

US v. Kennerley (1913)

Judge Hand noted that the Hicklin rule reduced society's treatment of sex to the standard of a child's library.

US v. One Book Called Ulysses

Judge Woolsey rejected US Custom's attempts to prohibit importing of James Joyce's Ulysses on obscenity grounds. He made 3 specific changes to the Hicklin Rule: 1. The work must be judged as a whole 2. The work must stir the sex impulses or lead to sexually impure and lustful thoughts 3. The alleged sexual stirrings must be judged according to a person with average sex instincts (not a child) The authority of the Hicklin rule was greatly diminished in this case.

Gregory v. Chicago (1969)

Justice Black addressed a case about picketing a person's home, stating that he believes a person's home may be kept private and protected.

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)

Justice Roberts announced that Connecticut's prior restraint licensing statute was unconstitutional because it gave state officials too much discretion over who would be permitted to solicit funds for religious causes. Roberts asserted that epithets or personal abuse is not communication protected under the Constitution, even though he ruled that Jesse Cantwell was not guilty of personal abuse. This case influenced the establishment of the "Fighting Words" doctrine in the Chaplinsky decision 2 years later.

Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993)

Lamb's Chapel, a church, asked permission to use the school facilities to show a religious film series, and was denied. Supreme Court ruled that the school district's rule discriminated against the viewpoint of the film series, and violated the Constitution's protection for freedom of speech. Continued the reasoning that began in Widmar which said that religious groups should be treated like any other group in matters of access to school facilities.

Burson v. Freeman (1992)

Mary Rebecca Freeman, treasurer for a candidate for public office in Tennessee, challenged the constituionality of a state statute that prohibited the display of campaign materials and solicitation of votes within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place. Freeman claimed it limited her ability to communicate with voters and thus violated the First Amendment. The State of Tennessee argued that the regulation served to legitimate interest of protecting the right of citizens to vote freely. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the law did not violate the Constitution.

Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)

Matthew Fraser gives vulgar speech during a student government election. He was suspended from school and sued the US district court that is violated his 1st amendment rights. The district court ruled in his favor under the Tinker rule and he was then elected the graduation speaker. The Supreme Court reversed this decision because the Tinker decision did not prevent schools from punishing offensively lewd and indecent speech. A high school assembly or classroom was no place from sexually explicit monologues and the First Amendment does not protect vulgar and lewd speech in schools.

Boos v. Barry (1988)

Michael Boos and two others tried to carry signs critical of the Soviet Union and Nicaragua near the embassies of those countries, violating the law against displaying signs at least 500 ft away from a country's embassy. It was ruled that displaying signs and conducting nonthreatening, peaceful demonstrations near a foreign embassy was protected.

Doe v. University of Michigan (1989)

Michigan's rule included punishment for discriminatory harassment of students. U.S. district court ruled that the policy was unconstitutional both on First Amendment Grounds and on the due process grounds of vagueness. The Court found the language of the policy to be so overbroad that is included a significant amount of expression that was protected by the first amendment.

Cameron v. Johnson (1968)

Mississippi legislature in 1964 enacted a statute prohibiting demonstrators from obstructing the entrance to any public premises of state government. A group of civil rights activists appealed their convictions under this law, but the U.S. Supreme court upheld the law on the ground that the statute was neight vague nor overbroad. The court made clear that this decision was not aimed at parades on city streets, but at protests that intentionally blocked driveways or doors to buildings. Protests in these spaces is not compatible with normal activity and therefore isn't protected by the constitution.

Connick v. Myers (1983)

Myers was fired for circulating a critical questionnaire concerning office grievances. Supreme Court noted the difference between this case and Pickering, observing that Myers' questionnaire concerned an employee grievance, rather than a public issue, and could be expected to disrupt the office. Limits 1st Amendment protection available to government employees to speech that deals with political matters.

Scheidler v. National Organization for Women II (2006)

NOW brought the case back to the Court of Appeals and back to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court again ruled in favor of PLAN, saying that the physical violence NOW cited was not protected under the Hobbs Act which was designed to criminalize acts or threats of physical violence related to robbery or extortion.

Kingsley International Pictures v. Regents

NY Licensing Board refused a permit for the film Lady Chatterley's Lover, and the Supreme Court viewed this decision as an effort to suppress ideas about private morality and thus rejected the censorship effort. Determined that nonconforming points of view concerning private sexual morality are considered protected speech under the Constitution, provided they are communicated in a nonobscene way.

People v. Radich (1970), Radich v. NY (1971), Radich v. Criminal Court (1974)

New York art gallery proprietor Stephen Radich was convicted of violating the NY flag desecration law. Radich's gallery featured an anti-war display by Marc Morell that included shapes and forms using the flags of several countries. The Supreme Court had a tied vote, so they let the NY ordinance stand. Radich persuaded a federal district court to hear the case and won an aquittal on First Amendment grounds. It is noteworthy that a federal court, not the U.S. Supreme Court, set Radich free.

Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967)

New York teachers were required to certify that they were not and never had been Communists. Justice Brennan declared the NY oath unconstitutional on grounds of vagueness and overbreadth. Brennan also announced the rejection of the position upheld in Adler v. Board of Education, which said that teachers and other public employees might have to surrender certain generally held constitutional rights in order to remain public employees.

Morse v. Frederick (2002)

Principal Morse suspended student for holding up a banner promoting illegal drug use (Bong Hits 4 Jesus) and confiscated it while their town was being filmed during Olympics. Frederick sued claiming this violated his right to free speech. His case was dismissed but on appeal, the case was reversed concluding that his rights were violated. The S.C. reversed this decision and the school officials did not violate 1st Amendment because 1. It occurred at a school event, 2. It promoted illegal drug use, 3. Principal may restrict speech to deter drug use by students

Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990)

Principal denied request to form a Christian club that would meet at the school during hours that classes were not in session on the basis that this would violate the establishment of religion clause. Supreme Court ruled in Mergens favor, upholding the constitutionality of the Equal Access Act. Justice O'Connor pointed out that the Equal Access Act was an extension of the Widmar case principles, and based her opinion on the Establishment clause.

Corry v. Stanford (1995)

Stanford attempted to fit its code into the fighting word exception of the First Amendment, it was ruled that their policy violated California's Leonard Law, a state statute that extended First Amendment protection to private postsecondary institutions within the state, binding them to the same free speech standards as public universities.

Pickering v. Board of Education (1968)

Supreme Court balanced the teacher's First Amendment right to discuss public issues outside the classroom against the government's right to control the speech of its employees, coming down on the side of the teacher.

Simon & Schuster v. Members of New York State Crime Victims Board (1991)

Supreme Court declared Son of Sam Law unconstitutional on the grounds that it penalized expression based on its content and that it was overbroad. Law denied convicted criminals profits they might receive from writing about their illegal activites.

Procunier v. Martinez (1974)

Supreme Court declared that mail censorship regulations of California Department of Corrections were unconstitutionally vague. Justice Powell established two standards for measuring the constitutionality of prison mail regulations: 1. Regulations must further a substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of expression. 2. Limitations on 1st Amendment Freedoms must be no greater than is necessary for protection.

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002)

Supreme Court held that Minnesota's announce clause violated the First Amendment. Justice Scalia noted that the court had never allowed the government to prohibit candidates from communicating relevant information to voters during an election. Dissenting opinion argued that selecting judges differed from selecting other members of the legislature.

Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez (2001)

Supreme Court ruled that a "gag rule" on welfare laws violated the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy distinguished between family planners in Rust and the LSC attorneys in this case. He said that LSC attorneys were speaking for their clients, not the government.

US Postal Service v. Greenburgh Civic Associations (1981)

Supreme Court ruled that home mailboxes are not a public forum of some limited nature to which the First Amendment guarantees access to all comers. By act of Congress, mailboxes are reserved for the deposit of mail delivered by the U.S. Postal Service.

Waters v. Churchill (1994)

Supreme Court sent matter back to lower courts to determine motivation for Churchill's firing, but concluded that: 1. Speech of a public employee earns the highest degree of constitutional protection when it concerns a public issue. 2. Government employers have an interest to avoid workplace disruption. 3. Government has the burden to show that speech threatens to interfere with operations. 4. Employee may be dismissed if government employer determines that significant workplace disruptions will likely result from speech.

Parker v. Levy (1974)

Supreme Court upheld Army's conviction of Levy for speaking against the war in Vietnam to other soldiers. Justice Rehnquist made it clear that the Army's action was not in violation of the 1st Amendment by distinguishing between military and civilian communities.

Beard v. Banks (2006)

Supreme Court upheld a ban on newspapers, magazines, and personal photographs acknowledging that the Constitution allows greater restriction of First Amendment rights in a prison than it would elsewhere, as determined in Turner v. Safley.

Turner v. Safley (1987)

Supreme Court upheld a regulation that allowed prison officials to prohibit mail between prisoners in different penal institutions. Announced a new standard that authorities can censor prisoner mail if the action is "Reasonably related" to legitimate penological interests.

Department of Justice v. Abbott (1989)

Supreme Court upheld a regulation that allows prison officials to reject incoming publications if the publication is determined detrimental to security. Explicitly overruled Procunier as applied to incoming mail, but outgoing mail still could be analyzed according to Procunier. Consequently, prisoners now have greater freedom to send mail than to receive it.

Rust v. Sullivan (1991)

Supreme Court upheld a regulation which stated that family planning agencies receiving federal funds could not provide counseling concerning the use of abortion or provide referral for abortion as a method of family planning. Justice Rehnquist added that these rules merely ensure that the statutory limits on the use of government funds are observed.

Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (1948)

Supreme Court upheld the right of the owner of a large apartment complex to ban from the premises all who wished to canvass, solicit, or distribute literature.

James v. Board of Education (1972)

Teacher was dismissed for wearing a black armband to protest the Vietnam War. Court of Appeals applied reasoning of Supreme Court case Tinker to order reinstatement of teacher.

Kime v. US (1982)

Teresa Kime and Donald Bonwell, members of the Revolutionary Communist party, burned a U.S. flag on the sidewalk in front of the federal court house in Greensboro, NC. Kime and Bonwell claimed they burned the flag to advertise and upcoming political rally, but a jury convicted them of violated a 1968 law against flag desecration. They appeals to the Supreme Court, but only Justice Brennan was willing to grant certiorari. Their appeals exaused and they surrendered to authorities and served 6 months in federal prison.

Terminiello v. Chicago (1949)

Terminiello was convicted for being guilty of disorderly conduct after delivery a racist, anti-Semitic speech. Justice Douglas reversed the conviction due to the overly broad way in which the trial judge instructed the jury concerning the meaning of the term "breach of the peace" in the Chicago ordinance. This case illustrates how trial errors or other technical details can influence the outcome of a case on appeal.

Thomas v. Chicago Park District (2002)

The Chicago Park District adopted an ordinance requiring a permit for all public events involving more than 50 individuals as well as insurance coverage for the events. The permit was nondiscrimnatory, covering all large groups from picnickers or activists. The Park District was required to process the application within 28 days and if denied, the decision could be appealed in 14 days, so all in all it was a 42 day process, after which an unsuccessful applicant could go to court. The Windy City Hemp Development Board, a political group favoring the legalization of marijuana, challenged the ordinance on the gorunds that the permit system was a form of prior restraint that violated the Constitution. Both U.S. district court the the U.S. court of appeals ruled that the permit system didn't violate the First Amendment. The Supreme Court upheld the ordinance. The Court declined to rule on the length of time and limits of insurance requirement, and so a resolution on these matters awaits future Court decisions.

Hague v. CIO (1939)

The Congress of Industrial Organizations challenged the constitutionality of a Jersey City, NJ ordinance requiring a permit for public meetings in public places. Mayor Frank Hague said the purpose of permits was to prevent riots and used the Boston Common decision in his defense. The federal district court disagreed and declared the ordinance unconstitutional. Hague appealed the decision and there was a plurality of decision by the justices. Justice Roberts' opinion has emerged as the more influential of the two opinions announced by the majority because he did not deny the principles from the Davis case, but recognized that citizens did hold a king of First Amendment easement to use public spaces. This is a significant case because in it the Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution required that streets, parkas, and similar public spaces be open for assembly, communicating thought between citizens, and discussing public questions. Such use may be regulated, said the Court, but not prohibited.

Hughes v. Superior Court(1950) and Giboney v. Empire Storage and Ice Co. (1949)

The Court consistently denied organized labor any Frist Amendment right to picket on behalf of an unlawful objective. The Court had little sympathy for picketing designed to coerce employers to hire according to strict racial quotas (Hughes) or to force them to adopt anticompetitive practices (Giboney).

Schneider v. State (1939)

The Court declared unconstitutional the ordinances of four cities which, in one form or another, prohibited the distribution of all types of hand bills on public streets.

International Bortherhood of Teamsters, Local 695 v. Vogt, Inc. (1957)

The Court held that picketing can be regulated. The court upheld restrictions on the speech plus factors in picketing, such as coercive conduct.

Smith v. Goguen (1974)

The Court reversed the Massachusetts conviction of Valerie Goguen for wearing a small cloth flag sewed to the rear of her blue jeans. The state flag law was vague, ruled the Court, and did not reasonably draw lines between ceremonial and nonceremonial treatment of the flag.

Kovacs v. Cooper (1949)

The Court upheld a Trenton, NJ ordinance that banned from the public streets any device known as a sound truck, loud speaker, or sound amplifier etc. which emits loud and raucous noises. The court found that because there was no discretion permitted under the Trenton ordrinance (the ban applied equaly to all) that the ordinance was ok because it was content neutral.

Houchins v. KQED (1978)

The First Amendment does not give media representatives the right to enter prisons on demand for the purpose of inspecting, photographing, and reporting on conditions in the prisons. Court pointed to the existence of official investigatory bodies to keep a check on prison conditions, thereby diminishing the need for special access by the press.

Pell v. Procunier (1974)

The First Amendment does not give prisoners a right to indiviual, face to face interviews with reporters

Saxbe v. Washington Post (1974)

The First Amendment does not give reporters the right to have face-to-face interviews with inmates selected by the reporters

Talley v. CA (1960)

The High Court held unconstitutional an ordinance that made it illegal to distribute any handbill unless it had printed on it the names and addresses of those who sponsored it.

Spence v. Washington (1974)

The High Court overtuned the conviction of a Washington college student for "improper use" of the flag. The student had affixed a peace symbol with removable black tape to his U.S. flag and then hung it upside down from his apartment window as a protest to the war in Vietnam. The Court overtuned the conviction because the student was charged with "improper use", not desecration, and his message was likely to be understood within the contours of the First Amendment.

Stromberg v. California (1931)

The High Court overturned the conviction of Yetta Stromberg, a member of the Young Communist League, for leading a group of young people in raising and saluting a Russian flag. California state law had recognized the communicative element of the flag as a symbol by making it a felony to display a red flag and banner in a public place as an emblem of opposition to organized government. The Supreme Court found the law vague and reversed the California courts order. This case is important because it addresses the issue of symbolic expression and shows that a symbol could function as a part of political discussion in free society.

Pinkus v. US

The Miller's Test's "average person" excludes minors. Average person means adults.

State of Minnesota v. Wicklund (1999)

The Minnesota Supreme Court refused to extend the state constitution to include the Mall of America, a giant mall outside Minneapolis-St. Paul that attracted more than 40 million visitors in 2006.

Murray v. Lawson (1994)

The NJ Court decreed that the picketing must be limited to no more than 10 persons for one hour every two weeks and that police must be given 24 hours notice before picketing occurred. The U.S. Supreme Court denied review.

Lawson v. Murray (1994)

The NJ Supreme Court had sustained an injunction barring antiabortion picketing within 300 ft. of the residence of a doctor who performed abortions. The U.S. Supreme Court sent the case back to the New Jersey Surperme Court to be considered in light of the Madsen decision. NJ modified its earlier ruling to prohibit picking to 100 ft of doctor's property.

Osborn v. Ohio (1990)

The Stanley decision did not cover the private possession of child pornography, even in one's home.

Davis v. Massachusetts (1897)

The U.S. Supreme court upheld the conviction of William F. Davis, a minister, for preaching in the Boston Common without a permit from the mayor, as was required by law. Davis was convicted not because the subject matter of which he spoke, but because of the place where he spoke.This case was important because the U.S. Supreme Court stated a position concerning the use of public spaces for speech purposes that would govern for more than 4 decades. The court stated "For the legislature absolutely or conditionally to forbid public speaking in a highway or public park is no more an infringement of the rights of a member of the public than for the owner of a private house to forbid it in his house." This case also presents the question: What time, place, and manner of expression may government and private enterprise enforce without violating the First Amendment?

Lehman v. Shaker Heights (1974)

The city of Shaker Heights, OH allowed commercial advertising but not political and public- issue advertising in or upon its transit system vehicles. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the policy- a flat ban on all advertising- was administered without discretion and that the policy did not violate the First Amendment.

Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza (1968)

The dispute over shopping center's as a forum lasted from 1968 to 1980. A union in Altoona, Pennslyvania was in dispute with a supermarket in the Logan Valley Mall. The shopping center owners, enjoined the union from picketing on the property of the mall, so the union appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and won (Court relied heavily on Marsh decision).

Nicholas v. Headley (1950) and Wollam v. City of Palm Springs

The distinctions between the Saia (discretion) and Kovacs (content neutral) cases is now applied in these subsequent efforts to regulate loudspeakers.

US v. Elchman and US v. Haggarty (1990)

These two flag burning appeals were combined into one opinion- "Punishing the desecration of the flag dilutes the very freedom that makes this emblem so revered and worth revering.

Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)

The matter of the regulation of the use of public places for communication purposes, mentioned but not developed in Hague and Schneider, reached the High Court in this case which concerned the right of New Hampshire cities require a permit for a parade and to charge a fee to cover expenses incurred by the government in maintaining public order during the event. The controversy began in Manchester, NH when a group of Jehovah's Witnesses paraded without a permit even though they knew state law required one. The Supreme Court unaimously ruled for the state, upholding the constitutionality of both the permit and free provisions of the law as constructed by the NH courts.

Forsyth County, GA v. Nationalist Movement (1992)

The white supremacist "Nationalist Movement" and civil rights marchers both marched in Forsyth County,GA. Rather than try to stop the marches, the local board of Commissioners enacted an ordinance that required a fee- not to exceed 1,000 per day- to help defray the cost oof supervising demonstrations on public streets and property. The Nationalist Movement refused to pay the $100 dollar fee and went to court seeking an injunction of the ordinance. The District Court rejected the request, but the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, deeming the ordinance unconstitutional. The Supreme Court agreed, saying the ordinance violated the First Amendment because it 1) lacked reasonable standards and 2) required that a fee be based on the content of the speech.

Widmar v. Vincent (1981)

Universtiy of Missouri notified a student religious organization that it could no longer meet on campus because the meetings violated the establishment of religion clause of the Constitution. Court rejected the administration's decision. Justice Powell said this was a content based restriction that violated the free speech clause.

Ward v. Illinois (1977)

Ward was convicted under state law for selling obscene magazines. Ward argued htat the Illinois statue did not conform to the part of the Miller test that required state laws to specifically define the sexual conduct that was obscene. Although he was right, the Cout upheld his conviction and used teh practice employed in Ginzburg and Michkin or formulating post facto redeinitions of obscenity to justify the decision. Dissenting judges pointed out that one of the cornerstones of the Miller test was abandoned. Now the test was "what one believes was intended to be defined by the applicable state law".

Shaw v. Murphy (2001)

While incarcerated, Murphy was punished for offering his legal assistance to a fellow prisoner. He argued that this was a violation of his 1st Amendment Rights. U.S. Supreme Court announced that prisoners have no 1st Amendment right to send legal correspondenc to one another. Citing Turner v. Safley, Justice Thomas allowed prison officials to censor prisoner mail if the action is "reasonably related" to legitimate penological interests.

Secretary of the Navy v. Avrech (1974)

While on active duty, Avrech prepared to circulate an antiwar statement, and was convicted for promoting disloyalty among troops. Supreme Court cited Park v. Levy and affirmed the decision of the military court.

Virginia v. Hicks (2003)

Whitcomb Court, a low income public housing projected owned by the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority banned Kevin Hicks under the project's trespass policy because Hicks had already had 2 trespass convictions and caused property damage. Hicks was arrested for reentering Whitcomb to visit family and was convicted for trespassing. Hicks appealed, arguing that the trespass policy violated the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, which permits people to challenge laws that threaten protected expression even if their free speech right have not been violated. The Virginia Court of Appeals ruled for hicks as did the Virginia Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Virginia and reinstated the trespass policy saying that the First Amendment had not been violated and therefore that the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine had been wrongly used.

Gooding v. Wilson (1972)

Wilson was arrested after a scuffle with police officers at an anti-Vietnam war protest. The Supreme Court overruled the conviction, citing that the state law was vague and overbroad. Justice Brennan observed that the fighting words doctrine of Chaplinsky did not reach all words found offensive by society but was strictly limited to language that had a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person to whom, individually, the remark is addressed. As a result of this case and the Cohen case, laws in question must be restricted to language 1. Spoken to another person in a face-to-face confrontation, and 2. Which is likely to incite an immediate breach of peace.

Roth v. US

○ Roth - Violated the Comstock Act of 1873 by mailing obscene advertising ○ Hicklin Rule - any work is obscene that can be perceived as likely to corrupt a child. This test neglects to recognize that some work unsuitable for children are suiable for adults. ○ The Roth Test - obsenity that is a form of expression which is both worthless and sexually lewd can be censored. ■ worthless (utterly without redeeming social importance) ■ sexually lewd (whether to the average person applying contemporary community standards the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest. Hicklin rule was replaced by the Roth test in this case. Court sustained the conviction of Roth. Court rejected view of Judge Bok that a clear and present danger to society and a causal connection to criminal behavior must be proved for expression to be legally obscene. Justice Brennan argued that obscenity contains no ideas worth protecting, so it need not be tested by the clear and present danger test. Determined for the first time that the Comstock Act's provisions were constitutional.

Redrup v. New York (1967)

● Appeals from several states for convictions for nonexplicit "sexy" publications ● USSC reversed convictions; no evidence of sale to juveniles or pandering (as defined by Ginzberg) ● moving toward a consenting-adults view of obscenity

Mishkin v. NY (1966)

● Convicted of selling obscene books about sexual behavior such as sadomasochism ● Mishkin said his books did not appeal to the normal person, as defined by Roth Test. Instead, he said the normal person would be repulsed by his books, not sexually stimulated. ● Upheld conviction and added to Roth Test the phrase "intended and probable recipient group" So, the material now needed to be assessed not in terms of the average person, but in terms of its intended and probable recipient group.

Ginzburg v. US (1966)

● Ginzburg mailed obscene publications; magazine Eros ● USSC sustained conviction but didn't comment on the obsenity ○ Found guilty of "pandering" - advertising to appeal to erotic interest Pandering: (employing suggestive advertising to promote the sale of publications) ○ pandering appended to Roth Test, so now included lewd advertising

Stanley v. Georgia (1969)

● Had 8mm stag film in his home for private use ● USSC overturned conviction because Georgia law was an unconstitutional invasion of privacy ● This does not mean right to disseminate materials The right of private reading or viewing is affirmed.

Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)

● Ohio courts found a nonexplicit love scene to be obscene ● Supreme Court reversed conviction ● Justices could not agree on a majority opinion First case after Roth. It became clear that jurors could not define what obscenity meant, and that this had not been clear in Roth.

Ginsberg v. New York (1968)

● Proprietor of luncheonette sold nonexplicit girlie magazine to a junenile ● USSC sustained conviction ● means strickter laws for minors than adults

Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)

● State censorship of Fanny Hill ● USSC declared book protected by Constitution because it had literary value.