Studied by 0 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
Near v Minnesota
Majority- prior restraint is presumed unconstitutional- 1st Amendment stops the government from stopping an article from being published
Dissenting- believed MN law was justified. Govt had the right to stop publication that were deemed defamatory
New York Times v Tasini
Majority- the contract didn’t grant them permission to distribute them electronically. Copyright law gives authors exclusive rights to control the distribution of their work
Dissenting- the authors granted the newspaper the right to reproduce their works so electric databases should not have constituted copyright
Santa Fe School District v Doe
Majority- the prayers were authorized by govt policy, on govt property, at a govt sponsored school event which violates church/state
Dissenting- prayer was a private, voluntary speech by students. The Establishment Clause was intended to prevent govt from establishing state religion
Epperson v Arkansas
majority- Butler Law violates the Establishment Clause, which mandates the separation of church/state. This law endorsed a specific religion by not teaching evolution
Schenck v United States
Majority- Didn’t violate 1st Amendment and was an appropriate exercise of Congress wartime authority. The govt could limit speech if a “clear and present danger” to national security appeared. His pamphlets were seen as a threat to recruitment. A “clear and present danger” test was created to evaluate what speech could be restricted
West Virginia School District v Barnette
Majority- violated their 1st amendment. The govt can’t force individuals to engage in actions that go against their religious beliefs.
Dissent- believed the court was exceeding the scope of judicial law and taking over the legislative role
overturned Minersville
Minersville v Gobitis
Majority- the court said national unity and public order were important. 1st amendment protects religion but doesn’t prevent govt from requiring certain actions
Dissent- 1st amendment protects from govt interference and can’t force people to participate in a symbolic act
Brandenburg v Ohio
Used two-pronged decision to evaluate speech acts
directed at inciting lawless action (imminence)
likely to incite or produce such action (likelihood)
His speech did not meet this criterion because they were spoken in general not to incite violence
New York Times v U.S
Majority- Couldn’t exercise prior restraint unless proven it could hurt national security in a major way- the govt couldn’t prove this
Dissent- argued that govt interest in protecting national security should take precedence over the press’ freedom to publish classified material
