Freedom of Expression Mid Term Court Cases

National Socialist Party v. Village of Skokie (1977)

HATE SPEECH CASE

The _________ __________ Party of America (a Nazi group) wanted to hold a march in ________, Illinois, a community with a significant Jewish population, many of whom were Holocaust survivors. The Village of Skokie tried to prevent the march, arguing that it would lead to violence and was deeply offensive to the community. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Nazi group, stating that even hate speech is protected under the First Amendment as long as it does not incite immediate violence. The Court emphasized the importance of free speech, even if the speech is unpopular or offensive.

Terminiello v. Chicago (1949)

HECKLERS VETO CASE

Arresting a controversial former Catholic priest under a breach of the peace ordinance due to his inciting a hostile audience amounted to an unconstitutional Heckler's Veto.

Feiner v. New York (1951)

HECKLERS VETO CASE

Arresting unpopular speakers is generally not okay unless they cause a "clear and present" danger in the streets

Brown v. Louisiana (1966)

HECKLERS VETO CASE

5 African-American men went into library and asked for a book and were told to leave. They sat down and silently refused to leave. The Supreme Court said public library may be a public forum as long as it doesn't interfere w/ basic function of a public library.

Hurley v. Irish-American GLBG of Boston

HECKLERS VETO CASE

the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a private organization, in this case, the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, had the right to exclude the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Group from its St. Patrick's Day parade. The Court held that the parade was a form of expressive conduct, and forcing the organization to include a group with opposing views would violate its First Amendment rights to free speech and association. The decision underscored the importance of freedom of expression for private groups, even if that expression may be viewed as discriminatory. The ruling emphasized that the government cannot compel a private organization to convey a message that conflicts with its values.

Schenk v. United States (1919)

INCITEMENT CASE

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of _________ __________, who had distributed leaflets opposing the draft during World War I. The Court ruled that his actions presented a "clear and present danger" to national security, which justified limitations on free speech under the Espionage Act. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. famously stated that free speech does not protect speech that incites illegal actions, especially in wartime. This case established a precedent for evaluating the limits of free speech in relation to public safety and national security.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

INCITEMENT CASE

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Benjamin __________ for distributing a socialist manifesto that called for the overthrow of the government. The Court ruled that the First Amendment's free speech protections apply to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. It established the precedent that states could limit speech that poses a "clear and present danger" to public safety. This case marked a significant expansion of the federal government's role in protecting individual rights against state laws.

Whitney v. California (1927)

INCITEMENT CASE

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Anita __________ for her involvement in the Communist Labor Party, which advocated for the violent overthrow of the government. The Court ruled that California's Criminal Syndicalism Act did not violate the First Amendment because it was aimed at preventing speech that incited imminent lawless action. Justice Louis Brandeis, in a concurring opinion, emphasized the importance of free speech and argued that the best remedy for harmful ideas is more speech, not suppression. This case reinforced the notion that states could regulate speech that posed a significant threat to public safety, although it also sparked ongoing debates about the limits of free expression.

Dennis v. United States (1951)

INCITEMENT CASE

The Supreme Court upheld the convictions of 11 members of the Communist Party who had given speeches advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government. In upholding these convictions, the Court developed the balancing doctrine.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

INCITEMENT CASE

Speech that does not call for illegal action is protected, and even speech that does call for illegal action is protected if the action is not "imminent" or there is reason to believe that the listeners will not take action.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)

FIGHTING WORDS CASE

On a public sidewalk in downtown Rochester, Walter ____________was distributing literature that supported his beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness and attacked more conventional forms of religion. Chaplinsky called the town marshal "a God-da**ed racketeer" and "a da**ed Fascist." He was arrested and convicted under a state law that prohibited intentionally offensive, derisive, or annoying speech to any person who is lawfully in a street or public area. The Supreme Court deemed he used fighting words and he ended up losing.

Cohen v. California (1971)

FIGHTING WORDS CASE

A 19-year-old department store worker expressed his opposition to the Vietnam War by wearing a jacket emblazoned with "F*CK THE DRAFT. STOP THE WAR" The young man, Paul _________, was charged under a California statute that prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or person [by] offensive conduct." Yes. In an opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the Court reasoned that the expletive, while provocative, was not directed toward anyone; besides, there was no evidence that people in substantial numbers would be provoked into some kind of physical action by the words on his jacket.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

FIGHTING WORDS CASE

In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee ___________ burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression under the First Amendment. The Court found that Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature.

R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992)

FIGHTING WORDS CASE

Several teenagers allegedly burned a crudely fashioned cross on a black family's lawn. The police charged one of the teens under a local bias-motivated criminal ordinance which prohibits the display of a symbol which "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." Yes. In a 9-to-0 vote, the justices held the ordinance invalid on its face because "it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses." The First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. Under the ordinance, for example, one could hold up a sign declaring all anti-semites are bastards but not that all Jews are bastards.

Watts v. United States (1969)

TRUE THREATS CASE

On August 27, 1966 while attending a protest and discussing police brutality, eighteen-year-old Robert __________stated, "I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." A federal statute makes it a crime to "knowingly and willfully" threaten the life of the President. No. In a per curiam opinion, the Court concluded, without hearing arguments, that Watts' statement was "political hyperbole". The Court noted, "The language of the political arena… is often vituperative, abusive, and inexact." Thus, considering the "context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners," the Court ruled that Watts' statement was not a true threat.

Virginia v. Black (2003)

TRUE THREATS CASE

Declares cross burning is protected by the First Amendment as long as the act does not have the intent to intimidate.

Elonis v. United States (2015)

TRUE THREATS CASE

Anthony _________was convicted under 18 U. S. C. §875(c), which criminalizes the transmission of threats in interstate commerce, for posting threats to injure his coworkers, his wife, the police, a kindergarten class, and a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent on Facebook. Yes. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion for the 8-1 majority. The Court held that the prosecution needed to show that Elonis intended the posts to be threats, and therefore that there was a subjective intent to threaten.

Counterman v. Colorado (2023)

TRUE THREATS CASE

____________repeatedly contacted a person over Facebook in 2014, sending her "creepy" and threatening messages from numerous different accounts even after she repeatedly blocked him. She reported Counterman to law enforcement, who was arrested and charged with one count of stalking, one count of serious emotional distress, and one count of harassment. To establish that a statement is a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the statements' threatening nature

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

HIGH SCHOOL CASE

Public school students may wear armbands to class protesting against America's war in Vietnam when such display does not disrupt classes

Bethel v. Fraiser (1986)

HIGH SCHOOL CASE

At a school assembly of approximately 600 high school students, Matthew _________made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. In his speech, Fraser used what some observers believed was a graphic sexual metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend. As part of its disciplinary code, Bethel High School enforced a rule prohibiting conduct which "substantially interferes with the educational process. The Court found that it was appropriate for the school to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language. Chief Justice Burger distinguished between political speech which the Court previously had protected in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

HIGH SCHOOL CASE

The U.S Supreme Court held for the first time that public schools can limit what appears in school-sponsored student publications.

Morse v. Frederick (2007)

HIGH SCHOOL CASE

Known as the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Limited students' free speech rights. Ruled that Frederick's free speech rights were not violated by his suspension over what the majority's written opinion called a "sophomoric" banner

Healy v. James (1972)

COLLEGE CASES

The Supreme Court held that Central Connecticut State College's refusal to recognize a campus chapter of Students for a Democratic Society was unconstitutional. The denial of official recognition was found to violate the First Amendment.

Papish v. Missouri Board of Curators (1973)

COLLEGE CASES

Board of Curators of University of Missouri is a court case that was heard and decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 19, 1973. Reaffirmed that public universities could not punish students for indecent or offensive speech that did not disrupt campus order or interfere with the rights of others.

Regina v. Hicklin (1868)

OBSCENITY CASE

The ___________ Test is a legal test for obscenity. At issue was the statutory interpretation of the word "obscene" in the Obscene Publications Act 1857, which authorized the destruction of obscene books. The court held that all material tending "to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences" was obscene, regardless of its artistic or literary merit.

Roth v. United States (1957)

OBSCENITY CASE

_________operated a book-selling business in New York and was convicted of mailing obscene circulars and an obscene book in violation of a federal obscenity statute. Roth's case was combined with Alberts v. California, in which a California obscenity law was challenged by Alberts after his similar conviction for selling lewd and obscene books in addition to composing and publishing obscene advertisements for his products. In a 6-to-3 decision written by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., the Court held that obscenity was not "within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press."

"Utterly without redeeming social importance"

Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)

OBSCENITY CASE

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of obscenity after a theater owner, Jill ___________, was convicted for showing the French film The Lovers, which was deemed obscene under Ohio law. The Court ruled that the state's obscenity law violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Justice Potter Stewart famously stated that he couldn't define what constituted obscenity, but he knew it when he saw it. This case underscored the complexities of regulating obscenity and highlighted the need for a more precise legal standard to protect artistic expression.

Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)

OBSCENITY CASE

Fanny Hill case which, in conjunction with Roth, provided the Roth-Memoirs Test for obscenity:

1. The dominant theme of the material as a whole must appeal to the prurient interest in sex.

2. Court must find that the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters.

3. Utterly without social value.

Miller v. California (1973)

OBSCENITY CASE

________, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material, was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that obscene materials did not enjoy First Amendment protection. The Court modified the test for obscenity established in Roth v. United States and Memoirs v. Massachusetts

Miller Test: It must be prurient, patently offensive, and lack serious values to be considered obscene, making it an unprotected form of speech under the First Amendment. This allows governments to regulate or ban such material without violating constitutional rights

Communications Decency Act of 1934

INDECENCY CASE

The Communications Act of 1934 combined and organized federal regulation of telephone, telegraph, and radio communications. The Act created the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to oversee and regulate these industries.

FCC v. Pacifica (1978)

INDECENCY CASE

During a mid-afternoon weekly broadcast, a New York radio station aired George Carlin's monologue, "Filthy Words." Carlin spoke of the words that could not be said on the public airwaves. The Court held that limited civil sanctions could constitutionally be invoked against a radio broadcast of patently offensive words dealing with sex and execration. The words need not be obscene to warrant sanctions. Audience, medium, time of day, and method of transmission are relevant factors

Sable v. FCC (1989)

INDECENCY CASE

In 1988, Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 to ban indecent and obscene interstate commercial phone messages. _________Communications had been in the dial-a-porn business since 1983. The Court upheld the District Court's ruling. Since the First Amendment does not protect obscene speech, as the Court found in Paris Adult Theater I v. Slaton (1973), the ban on obscene speech was legitimate. However, sexual expression that is simply indecent is protected.

Denver v. FCC (1996)

INDECENCY CASE

requires public access channel cable operators to restrict "patently offensive" programming to a single channel, access to which must be restricted to those subscribers who submit written requests. Petitioners, television access programmers and cable television viewers, filed suit alleging that the Act's empowerments and restrictions violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. In a 6-to-3 decision, The Court held that the Act's grant of authority to leased channel cable operators under 10(a) - allowing them to restrict the transmission of "patently offensive" or indecent programming - is consistent with the First Amendment.

Reno v. ACLU (1997)

INDECENCY CASE

The 1996 Communications Decency Act was ruled unconstitutional since it was overly broad and vague in its regulation of speech on the Internet, and since it attempted to regulate indecent speech, which the First Amendment protects.

Fox v. FCC (2012)

INDECENCY CASE

In 2004, the Federal Communications Commission said that TV stations could be fined for indecency violations in cases when a vulgarity was broadcast during a live program. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for seven members of the court, vacated the lower judgment and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held that the FCC's standards, as applied to the broadcasts in this case, were vague. The FCC did not give proper notice to broadcasters that they would be fined for fleeting expletives

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

POLITICAL SPEECH CASE

In the wake of the Watergate affair, Congress attempted to ferret out corruption in political campaigns by restricting financial contributions to candidates. Among other things, the law set limits on the amount of money an individual could contribute to a single campaign and it required reporting of contributions above a certain threshold amount. In this complicated case, the Court arrived at two important conclusions. First, it held that restrictions on individual contributions to political campaigns and candidates did not violate the First Amendment since the limitations of the FECA enhance the "integrity of our system of representative democracy" by guarding against unscrupulous practices. Second, the Court found that governmental restriction of independent expenditures in campaigns, the limitation on expenditures by candidates from their own personal or family resources, and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)

POLITICAL SPEECH CASE

The Michigan Campaign Finance Act prohibited corporations from using treasury money for independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections for state offices. However, if a corporation set up an independent fund designated solely for political purposes, it could make such expenditures. In making its case, the Michigan Chamber of Commerce argued that it should have been excluded from the act's restrictions since the Chamber was a "nonprofit ideological corporation" which was more analogous to a political association than a business firm. The Court disagreed and upheld the Michigan law.

FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007)

POLITICAL SPEECH CASE

case that declares the BCRA section that bans corporate spending on issue ads within 60 days of an election unconstitutional

Citizens United v. FEC

POLITICAL SPEECH CASE

A 2010 decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that independent expenditures are free speech protected by the 1st Amendment and so cannot be limited by federal law. Leads to creation of SuperPACs & massive rise in amount of third party electioneering (Citizens for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow)

Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)

COMMERCIAL SPEECH CASE

In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court said for the first time that "purely commercial speech" is not protected by the 1st A.

The Court discussed why advertising does not deserve the First Amendment protection afforded "political speech."

The start of Commercial Speech Doctrine.

Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)

COMMERCIAL SPEECH CASE

Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a newspaper editor for running an adv. offering abortion services, ruling that SPEECH DOES NOT LOSE ITS FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION JUST BECAUSE IT APPEARS IN THE FORM OF A COMMERCIAL ADVERTISEMENT.

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)

COMMERCIAL SPEECH CASE

Acting on behalf of prescription drug consumers, the Virginia Citizens Consumer Council challenged a Virginia statute that declared it unprofessional conduct for licensed pharmacists to advertise their prescription drug prices. In a 7-to-1 opinion, the Court held that the First Amendment protects willing speakers and willing listeners equally. The Court noted that in cases of commercial speech, such as price advertising, freedom of speech protections apply just as they would to noncommercial speech.

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980)

COMMERCIAL SPEECH CASE

The Public Service Commission of New York (PSC), in the interest of conserving energy, enacted a regulation that prohibited electric utilities from promoting electricity use. The PSC's regulation distinguished promotional advertising from informational advertising, which was permitted. In an 8-1 opinion, the Court overruled the Court of Appeals of New York and held that the New York's ban violated the right to commercial speech. Writing for the majority, Justice Lewis F. Powell cited the protections for "commercial speech from unwarranted governmental regulation"

HUDSON TEST