AP Gov Court Cases

Schenk v. United States

Description: Schenk and Baer distributed socialist leaflets that advised the public to peacefully disobey the draft. Schenk was charged in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917.

Finding: Charge did not violate freedom of speech

Significance: Speech can be limited during wartime

Termniello v. Chicago

Description: Father Terrminiello made a speech criticizing political and racial groups as well as a protesting crowd outside the auditorium he was in. Termniello was charged for “breach of the peace” and central role in inciting a riot after the crowd outside became too hard to control for the police.

Finding: 1st amendment was violated because the speech itself did not intentionally incite a riot

Significance: freedom of speech is protected if it does not create a clear and present danger and does not have the intention to

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

Description: In 1965 a group of students planned to wear black arm bands throughout the holiday season and the Principal of the Des Moines school created a policy 2 days before the protest was supposed to start that banned students from wearing black arm bands with refusal to comply with the policy resulting in suspension. The students who wore the arm bands were sent home and did not return to school until New Years Day - the planned end date of the protest. The students and their parents charged the school with violating the students’ right to expression.

Finding: The 1st amendment was violated because the protest was peaceful, meaning the school had no right to restrict the speech of the students.

Significance: Student’s Constitutional rights overrule schools’ rights to discipline students as they see fit. “Students don’t lose their right to free speech when they walk onto campus.”

Brandenburg v. Ohio

Description: Brandenburg, a leader in the KKK made a speech at a KKK rally and was later charged under the Ohio criminal syndicalism law that made advocating for crime, sabotage, violence, or terrorism, etc. illegal.

Finding: The Ohio law violated the 1st amendment because the speech did not create an immediate danger, meaning it can’t be considered illegal

Significance: Speech can be about illegal/violent activities and as long as it does not incite a clear and present danger it is legal