First Amendment

Schenck v. US

"clear and present danger" test does not protect speech that creates a clear and present danger of a significant evil that congress has the power to prevent

Beauharnais v. illinois

A 5-to-4 Court found that punishment for criminal libel under the Illinois statute was not unconstitutional because libel isn't protected speech. While the case has not been specifically overruled, it is widely considered to no longer be "good law." Justice Hugo Black's dissent: He says that the Illinois law "sets up a system of state censorship which is at war with the kind of free government envisioned by those who forced adoption of our Bill of Rights. The motives behind the state law may have been to do good. But the same can be said about most laws making opinions punishable as crimes." libel isnt protected speech no longer considered good law because moving in a direction of protection for free speech

Supreme Court

Chief Justice: John Roberts Clarence Thomas Ruth Ginsburg Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch

nationalist socialist party v skokie

Intent to march through Skokie (mainly Jewish neighborhood) Holocaust survivors, in their nazi uniforms basically Cook county, where it started, and Skokie prohibited the march (mainly the swasoki) not the march itself. But of course they did it anyway Appellate court wouldn't take the case Illinois refused or denied the case And then the supreme court decided to take it They basically said when you want to protect first amendment rights and so the lower courts had to make a decision. The appellate court had to take and they eliminate the everything but the swastoki and the appellate court decided with the national socialist party and then the supreme court sided with them too Wasn't considered fighting words There needed to be procedural things

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

Justice Byron White, for the majority: "...educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns." The Court ruled that the rights of students are applied "in light of the special characteristics of the school environment." The decision has been interpreted by First Amendment advocates as giving school officials wide latitude to control student expression that might be seen as sponsored by the school.

Bethel School District v. Fraser

Majority Opinion: The "constitutional rights of students at public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults."

UWM Post v. Board of Regents

Policy banning certain speech and students could be disciplined if they break this code or whatever because apparently the comments went against race or creed and it created a hella disruptive policy And students OF COURSE went against it School was like its constitutional Speech code was overbroad and it did not show fighting words and it did not meet fighting words

viewpoint discrimination

RAV v. St. Paul even if words are considered to be fighting words, the first amendment still protects the speech if the restriction is based on its content or involves viewpoint

Incitement

Speech that is intended to provoke imminent lawless action and is likely to produce imminent lawless action.

Brandenburg v. ohio

The Court established a new test to determine when inflammatory speech intending to advocate illegal action can be restricted. The Brandenburg test says that speech can be prohibited if it is directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action and if it is likely to incite or produce such action. Also called the "imminent lawless action" test. The Court overruled the "clear and present danger" test previously established in Schenck. The Court ruled per curiam.

National socialist party of America v. Village of Skokie?

The Supreme Court held that if a lower court plans to grant a prohibition on speech, there needs to be strict procedural safeguards in place. (Perhaps like a quick appellate review.) Later on, the Illinois Supreme Court determined that displaying a swastika does not fall within the "fighting words" exception of free speech.

Morse v. Frederick

The majority found that public schools can prevent students from promoting the use of illegal drugs at an school-supervised event. The majority found that while the banner might have been nothing but "gibberish," it was reasonable for the principal who "had to act - or not act - on the spot" to decide that it promoted illegal drug use. Dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens: "In my judgment, the First Amendment protects student speech if the message itself neither violates a permissible rule nor expressly advocates conduct that is illegal and harmful to students. "

Fighting Words

Words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.

free exercise clause

allows people to worship as they please

precedent

an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

texas v johnson

burned the flag symbolic speech he is protected by first amendment agreed with the texas ruling that you shouldn't be burning the flag but he is allowed to do it dissents: unique symbol that deserves special attention

per curiam

by the court. unanimous agreement. issued in the name of the court rather than specific judges

synder v phelps

cause for liability and distress. went to jury and judge lowered it, went to supreme court to see if westboro church was protected stayed a reasonable amount away from funeral dissent: vicious assault, where is the line?

The First Amendment

congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

injunction

court order requiring a person to do or cease doing a specific action

What does it mean?

freedom: religion, speech, press, assembly, petition

amicus curiae

friend of the court. impartial adviser, often voluntary, to a court of law in a particular casse

en banc

full court. basically where a case is heard before all of the judges of a court rather than a panel of judges selected from them.

Reasonable time/place

government can impose restrictions in a public forum justified without reference to the content of regulated speech serve a significant gov interest leave open ample alternative channels for communication of info

O'Brien Test

is the law within the constitutional power of the gov? does it further an important or substantial gov interest? is that interest unrelated to the supression of free expression? (content-neutral) does the law prohibit no more speech than is necessary to further the government interest?

RAC v City of St. Paul

minors were protected trial court replaced it, rav appealed to supreme court, the law was overly broad, was it content based? scalia: original intent, hella conservative viewpoint discrimination first amendment protects the speech if the restriction is based on its content or involves viewpoint discrimination

unprotected speech

obscenity child pornography libel and slander crimes involving speech

Who is protected?

private parties aren't protected broad protection for public concern

establishment clause

prohibits the government from establishing an official religion

Tinker v. Dex Moines

school officials must show that a ban or rule was created based off more than a desire to avoid the discomfort that accompanies an unpopular point of view School officials may not silence student expression because they dislike it or out of fear. School officials must reasonably forecast that the student expression would lead to either a substantial disruption of the school environment or an invasion of the rights of others.

symbolic speech/expressive conduct

texas v johnson flag waving and draft card burning

fighting words

texas v johnson unprotected speech because they are considered to lack social value in the marketplace of ideas