freedom of speech

On the 11th day in the 11th hour of the 11th month of 1918…

The treaty is signed to end WWI.

Schenck v. United States established

Clear & Present Danger Test

Schenck v. United States was about

circulars talking about how they should not submit to intimidation to be drafted

clear and present danger

The Court held that in wartime, speech that poses a “clear and present danger” can be restricted. The Court likens the ideas expressed in Schenck’s leaflets to “falsely shouting fire in a theatre andcausing a panic.”

Did Schenck's conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech?

no, US won

Abrams v. United States about

two leaflets were thrown from window of the building

Abrams v. United States

Did the amendments to the Espionage Act or the application of those amendments, in this case, violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment?

NO, US won

Abrams v. United States established

“Marketplace of Ideas” IN DISSENT

“Marketplace of Ideas” quote

Holmes said “the ultimate good desire is better reached by free trade in ideas … the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.”

Market place of idea

capitalism; Individuals can decide how they respond to things

Gitlow v. New York was about

distributed copies that were calling for the establishment of socialism to overthrow the govt

Gitlow v. NY created

Incorporated “Free Speech” Clause of 1st Amendment

Does the First Amendment prevent a state from punishing political speech that directly advocates the government's violent overthrow?

NO, NY won The Court reasoned the government could punish speech that threatens its basic existence because of the national security implications.

Important quote from Gitlow v New York

Holmes (in dissent) says “EVERY idea is an incitement"

Did a state law prohibiting people from flying red flags as a political statement violate the First Amendment?

YES, Stromberg won *Js because you break the law does not mean its wrong cause the law itself might be unconstitutional

Stromberg v. People of California established

Protected “Symbolic Speech”

Stromberg v. People of California said symbolic speech…

The Court ruled that the nonverbal, symbolic expression of her antigovernment opinion is protected just as words she might write or speak to express those opinions

Stromberg v. People of California was about

displaying a red flag

Cantwell v. Connecticut was about

Jehovah witnesses who were proselytizing

Did the solicitation statute or the "breach of the peace" ordinance violate the Cantwells' First Amendment free speech or free exercise rights?

YES, cantwell won

Cantwell v. Connecticut establisehd

“Time, Place, and Manner” Restrictions are Constitutional, but Content Restrictions are NOT

Minersville v. Gobitis about

jehovahs refusing to salute to the flag

Minersville v. Gobitis established

YOU HAVE TO salute to flag due to clear and present danger and national unity

Did the mandatory flag salute infringe upon liberties protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

NO,minnersville won

W. Virginia v. Barnette about

refusal to salute to flag

Did the compulsory flag salute for public school children violate the First Amendment?

YES, Barnette

W.Virginia v. Barnette Importance

minnersville v gobitis led to many Jehovah's being horribly treated as assault and kills and this led them be able to freely not salute to the flag

W.Virginia v. Barnette established

CANNOT COMPEL ideological speech.

in W. Virginia Justice Jackson said

“Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.” aka. warns that enforcing unity of opinion destroys liberty

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire about

called the city marshal bad words

Did Chaplinsky’s conviction violate the First Amendment?

NO, N. H

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire is an example of

hate and inciteful speech

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire established definition of

fighting words

fighting words

certain words that “by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace…

Were the free speech rights of the demonstrators denied?

YES, Garner

Garner v. Louisiana about

5 Africans having a peaceful sit in

Garner v. Louisiana established

SYMBOLIC speech is protected

Did Alabama's libel law unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of press protections?

YES, NYT won

NY Times v. Sullivan about

L.B. Sullivan, a Montgomery city commissioner, sued for libel, alleging that minor inaccuracies in the ad damaged his reputation, even though he was not named.

NY Times v. Sullivan created

“Actual Malice” test

“Actual Malice” test

hard to prove; Protects the press from libel damages when when reporting on public officials unless “actual malice” can be proven, meaning it was made “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not”

Was the law an unconstitutional infringement of O'Brien's freedom of speech?

NO, US

U.S. v. O’Brien about

burned his draft card

U.S. v. O’Brien established

substantial government interest

substantial government interest

when the government believes need something: when the government is in crucial need of soldier; time matters

who created the draft

abraham lincoln

Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?

Yes, tinker

Tinker v. Des Moines about

armbands

Tinker v. Des Moines created

Tinker test

tinker test

Students don’t shed their rights at the “schoolhouse gate”

Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

yes, brandenburg

Brandenburg v. Ohio about

KKK made a speech and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law

Brandenburg v. Ohio is an example of

fighting words, incitement test

Brandenburg v. Ohio created

incitement test/ imminent lawless action test- Even the advocacy of violence is protected, except in rare circumstances

incitement test/ imminent lawless action

1. Is it directed at inciting imminent lawless action?

2. Is it likely to produce such action?

Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment? (The Pentagon Papers)

Yes, Nyt

NYT v. US was about

pentagon paper released

5 branches of got

legislative, executive, judicial, the people, the press

NYT v. US established

the government can’t precentor the press

Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner about

handbills in mall

Were Tanner and the other protestors' First Amendment right to free speech violated by Lloyd's refusal to allow them to distribute handbills on mall property?

NO, Lloyd won

Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner establsihed

Free Speech Ends Where Private Property Begins

Free Speech Ends Where Private Property Begins

Free speech can be limited on private property (even if the property is open to the public). However, the sidewalks outside the mall would have been OK, because they are owned by the city.

Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner example of

time place and manner

Is the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail protected under the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee?

No, cal

Miller v. California about

adult material being mailed with no cover

Miller v. California estab;ished

miller test or obscenity test to define obsceinty

obscenity test

LAPS

its okay when the purpose is literary, artistic, political or scientific

Miller v. California if covered would have been ok due to

marketplace of idea

Did the PSC's ban on advertising violate the freedom of speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

yes, central won

Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission about

advertising

Central Hudson v. Public Service Commission established

central Hudson test

central Hudson test

1st amendment only protect truthful speech about a lawful commercial activity

texas v. Johnson about

burned an American flag

Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?

yes, johnson won

texas v. Johnson example of

symbolic speech

texas v. Johnson established

flag burning protected in states (texas)

Did the Flag Protection Act violate the freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?

yes, eichman won

us v. eichman

burned flag in us capitol

us v. eichman established

flag burning protected in country

which cases are about the same topic

TX v. Johnson & US v eichman; minnersville v gobitis & W. Virginia v. barnette

Virginia v. Black established

hate speech is protected

The act itself is not enough evidence to prove the intention was to intimidate (“prima facie” evidence…sufficient on its face). 

Does the Commonwealth of Virginia's cross-burning statute, which prohibits the burning of a cross with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, violate the First Amendment?

yes, black

Virginia v. Black about

burned a cross

Does a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of a state capitol building violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which barred the government from passing laws “respecting an establishment of religion?

no, perry

Van orden v. perry established

Lemon Test, yes, but “history & tradition” of the Monument allowed

Van orden v. perry about

ten commandments at the steps of the state captiol

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum established

lemon test faded more;

It has “undeniable historical meaning”

Does a city's refusal to place a religious organization's monument in a public park violate that organization's First Amendment free speech rights when the park already contains a monument from a different religious group?

no, pleasant Grove wn

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum about

group asking the 10 commandments to be put in the park even though it doesnt relate to its history and already other thing is in ther

lemon test

1. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose,

2. Its principal or primary effect must be one that neither promotes nor inhibits religion, 

3. Must not foster “excessive government entanglement with religion.”

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission about

anti-prez movie before election and if this classfied as a ad and falls under BCRA

Should a feature-length documentary about a candidate for political office be treated like the advertisements at issue in McConnell and therefore be subject to regulation under the BCRA?

No, citizens v united won

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission established

Campaign Donations = Protected SPEECH

- prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions

Does the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased?

yes, phelps

Snyder v. Phelps about

anti gay people protest at marines funeral 1000 feet away

Snyder v. Phelps established

more hate speech protected

Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans Inc. established

Specialty license plates are government speech; Texas therefore has the right to decide which designs they want, or don’t want, to produce.

Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans Inc. about

texas license plates and how veterans wanted a specialty one that might possibly be offensive to some

Does prevention of the confederate flag from appearing on license plates constitute viewpoint discrimination?

No, Walker won.