1/32
cases for the first amendment
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced | Call with Kai |
|---|
No analytics yet
Send a link to your students to track their progress
Lemov v. Kurtsman (1971)
created a three pronged test for religion cases in schools:
law must have a secular purpose
effect of the law must not enhance or prohibit religion
law must not create excessive entanglement between state and religion
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
it’s unconstitutional to make students pray in school
Everson v. BoE (1947)
taxes can pay for taking students to parochial schools, buy secular textbooks, and pay for tuition factors for low-income families
Van Oden v. Perry (2005)
the 10 commandments can be displayed if other religious texts are and if they’re not paid for by tax dollars
Minversville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
upheld the student flag salute mandate in the interest of “national unity”
West Virginia BoE v. Barnette (1943)
reversed the mandatory flag salute decision, saying that one can’t force a unanimous opinion upon people
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)
school attendance beyond 8th grade isn’t mandatory if because of religious beliefs
Employment Division v. Smith (1990)
illegal drugs can’t be used for religious purposes
Santa Fe v. Doe (2000)
student led prayer at school events violates the constitution
U.S v. O’Brien (1968)
burning the draft card isn’t protected by free speech because it could encourage other people to burn their cards and to desert the war
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
burning the u.s flag is a protected form of symbolic, political speech
Morse v. Frederick (2007)
public schools can limit/prohibit speech if it promotes drugs or any illegal substances
Schenck v. U.S (1919)
first amendment doesn’t protect speech that presents a clear and present danger to cause “signifigant evil”
reno v. ACLU
congress cant use blanket statements to regulate online/sent speech based off of its content
brandenburg v. ohio
speech can be limited if it’s directed at incite or produce imminent lawless action or if it can produce it
chaplinsky v. new hampshire
fighting words are not protected by the 1st amendment, fighting words as in words that break the peace and cause direct harm to their target
tinker v desmoins
students dont lose ther 1st amendment rights once on school property, and symbolic speech or poliical are protected in schools
bethel v fraser
the 1st amendment doesnt protect students who make lewd speech or use vulgar language as it’s considered disruptive to the flow of education
hazelwood v. kuhlmeier
schools arent obligated to promote certain kinds of student speech that dont line up with the values of society
NYT v. sullivan
in order to prove libel, you have to prove that the accused was completely aware that they were spreading misinformation
near v minnesota
with very few exceptions, the govt cant censor publications before they’re published
NYT v. U.S (pentagon papes)
for publications not inciting inevitable, direct, and immediate event imperiling the safety of American forces, prior restraint was unjustified
sheppard v. maxwell
sheppard wasnt able to have a fair trial because of the extensive and aggressive media coverage
turner broadcasting v. fcc
must-carry mandates were not unconstitutitonal because they werent determined by content but my broadcasting method
miller v. california
obscene materials are not protected by the first amendment
burstyn v. wilson
court upheld that film is protected by the first amendment
richmond newspaper v. virginia
reporters and news coverage is allowed in courtrooms
cox v. new hampshire
states can place regulations on protests to ensure they keep peace and order
adderly v. florida
state can control its own property for legal, non discriminatory reasons
feiner v. new york
police can suspend free speech if they fear that the speech might cause violence, but not based on the content of the speech
gregory v chicago
arrests for protestors must be backed by actual disorderly conduct
nazi party of america v. village of skokie
you cant disallow a protest/rally based off of its content
dejonge v oregon
states have to adhere by the right to assembly