Gov 1st Amendment

Schenck v. US

Military pamphlets  

Limited

In 1919 Charles Schenck distributed pamphlets that encouraged men to resist the draft (military). The court ruled it was limited. The court ruled limited. Was rightfully arrested. seditious speech. WW1 draft -> time period. Charles was a socialist general security and he was charged for violating the espionage act by distributing flyers that proclaimed that the draft is against the 13th amendment. The court ruled that Charles was in the wrong. The speech does not protect actions that harm the country and it disrupts and impacts the people joining the draft.  (like Someone yelling fire in a theater and someone else getting trampled-> it is the person who yelled ”fire”s fault.

Texas v. Johnson

Flag

Protected

Burnt American flag in 1989  protesting against nuclear weapons in a republican national convention. He won. Protected as a “symbolic speech” . The gov said that they couldn't arrest them because it was simply offencive. Cant insight violence or disrupt the peace The ruler was protected, because he owned the flag, so the owner should have the right to do whatever they want to do with the flag, as long as it's legal.

ex. Can an employee talk about political speech? Limited because the boss can fire them. 

ex.Racist twitter speech- Limited, because the government can not do anything but twitter can do something.

B.L. v. Mahanoy

Brandi with an I

Protected

After Brandi Levy tried out for the varsity cheerleading squad, Brandi didn't make it. Brandi posted a snap chat message with vulgar language criticizing the school's sports program. This post was shared with the coach, and as a result of this the coach suspended her for a year. Levy's parents sued, claiming that this violated her first amendment rights. The court ruled in favor of Levy, this right was protected.

Hazelwood v. Khulmeier

School Speech

Limited

The students were writing about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce. The principal sensors it behind their back and the students sue. The principal is allowed to block it as long as it is related to educational concerns. It was written in a classroom and so the school was the one who was paying for it and putting it out so the school had the power to sensor it also it represents the school so the school can control it (therefore school speech)

Tinker v. Des Moines

Arm bands

Protected

Tinker v. Des Moines was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case in 1969 that affirmed the First Amendment rights of students in public schools, specifically their right to freedom of speech, as long as it does not disrupt the educational environment.

Kowalski v. Berkeley 

Disruption/My Space

Limited 

Kara Kowalski posted a myspace targeting a fellow student with hateful comments and photos, she invited many other peers and classmates to join her. As a result of this the school suspended her for 5 days and issued a 90 day social suspension. The court ruled this was limited. Kowalski sued the school, alleging violations of her first amendment rights. The court ruled that the schools discipline was unconstitutional because this harassment interfered with the schools learning. Therefore this is limited.

Wallace v. Jaffree

Meditation

Limited

An Alabama law authorized a period of time for meditation or voluntary prayer. In practice prayer was often read out loud in union. Factors: age of students, if they can choose not to do it, what about kids who don't follow any religion? The state of Alabama lost. It was read aloud so everyone had to listen to it -> it is pushing a religion on the students

Santa Fe v. Doe

Pray 

limited

Texas school district that suggested student-led prayer before a football game. During class students would vote on which student would lead the prayer that week. Prayer was given over the stadium's P.A. system. Factors: Not during school hours, on school campus, but voluntary to go to the game. The school lost. It was seen as the school supporting it.

New York Times v US

Prior Restraint 

Protected 

NYT said that all of the news should be made public so the people could see if the gov was telling the truth. The US said that there should be prior restraint to protect national security and they don't let them publish anymore. The verdict was that the prior censorship could only be used if publications could endanger the nation's security. NYT won