1st Amendment Exam 2 (speech)

Terminello V Chicago 1949

Facts- Terminello was convicted of disorderly conduct as being apart of an unruly protest outside a meeting of over 800 people, smoke bombs were set off and a window was broken. Terminiello said offensive terms towards those inside as calling them “slimy scum” and compared them to European fascist leaders. At Terminiello trial the jury was instructed that they could convict if his speech stirs public anger, invites dispute and brings out a condition of unrest.

Issue- Is the court’s instruction to the jury in regards to Terminiello’s case a violation of the 1st amendment?

Holding- the court held that the instruction violated the 1st amendment

Rule- Free speech is permitted unless there is likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance or unrest.

Reasoning- Speech may not be restricted because the ideas expressed offend the audience

Cantwell v Connecticut 1940

Facts- Jese Cantwell, a Jehovah’s witness played a phonograph record that attacked the Roman catholic church to people on the street. Two of which gave him permission to play the phonograph. He was charged with inciting a breach of peace.

Issue- is Jesse Cantwell’s conviction of inciting the breach of peace unconstitutional in regards to the free speech clause of the 1st amendment?

Holding- Yes, the conviction is a violation of the free speech clause under the 1st amendment. His speech is protected.

Rule- In absence of a stature narrowly drawn to define and punish specific conduct as constituting a clear and present danger to a substantial interest of the state.

Reasoning- There was no assault or threat pf bodily harm, no intentional discourtesy, no personal abuse, Justice Roberts claimed Cantwell only made an effort to persuade willing listeners to buy a book or contribute money to a religion be believed was true despite it offending others. Justice Robers acknowledges the sharp differences between others and people may resort to aggregation but in spite of this these liberties are essential to Enlighted opinion and the right conduct of the part of the citizen of a democracy.

Feiner V New York 1951

Facts- The petioner was convicted of disorderly conduct because he was soapboxing to a group of people and urged them to attend a meeting that night at the Syracuse Hotel. During this soapbox, he made derogatory comments towards the president and the mayor. He urged black passersby to stand up for equal rights. Officers stepped in to prevent a fight amongst all the tension occurring. They then arrested the petioner once he refused multiple times to get down from the box and stop speaking.

Issue- Did Feiner’s disorderly conduct conviction violate his 1st amendment rights to free speech?

Holding- No, Feiner’s conviction did not violate his 1st amendment rights to free speech.

Rule- Speech that incites immediate violence or disturbance can be restricted to maintain public order, even if it involves unpopular viewpoints.

Reasoning - Officers can intervene in suppressing public speech when it threatens public peace

Justice black dissent- far fetched to suggest any imminent threat of riot or uncontrollable disorder. He argued that the officers make all reasonable efforts to protect petioner, the officers in this case seemingly made no efforts to do so or calm the situation at all just acted to suppress the right for Feiner to speak. Black also argued there should have been courtesy and explanation of commands given to Feiner. he compared this to an authoritarian state of conduct.

Chaplinsky v New Hampshire 1942

Facts- Chaplinsky, a jehovah’s witness was convicted under New Hampshire law. He was calling all religion a “racket”. The crowd was getting restless and he was taken in but not arrested. Chaplinsky after being convicted by the New Hampshire Supreme court appealed to the US Supreme court.

Issue- Is New Hampshire statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech.

Holding- New Hampshire’s statute does not violate the fourteenth amendment regarding freedom of speech.

Rule- "Fighting words," which are likely to provoke violence and breach the peace, are not protected under the First Amendment's free speech clause.

Reasoning- “Fighting words” have no social value and don’t help share ideas. These words can cause immediate violence.

Hecklers Veto (Feiner V New York)

This rule also gives opportunities to hecklers veto- you can silence speech by turning it into a matter of safety and disrupting the event on purpose.

Snyder v phelps 2011

Facts- The congregation of the west burro Baptist church in Topeka Kansas picketed military funerals claiming god hates the US for homosexual, tolerance. Fred Phelps the leader travelled to Matthew Snyder’s military funeral to do the same. Matthew’s fathers sued the church for infliction of emotional distress.

Issue- Is Westboro’s words entitled to 1st amendment protection?

Holding- Yes Westboro’s words are entitled to 1st amendment free speech protections.

Rule- Speech on matters of public concern in a public forum even if offensive is entitled to protection under the 1st amendment

Reasoning- The speech took place at a public forum in a public place. The matters addressed were also of public concern regarding conduct of the United States. Even if speech is hurtful it should be protected to ensure free expression.

Landmark communications V Virginia

Facts- The Virginian Pilot, a landmark newspaper reported that the Virginia Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission was contemplating opening an investigation into a particular state judge. Landmark was convicted of divulging information regarding confidential matters.

Issue- Is Landmark’s conviction unconstitutional

Holding

Rule

Reasoning