First Amendment: Freedom of Speech - Summary
First Amendment: Freedom of Speech
Protected vs. Unprotected Speech
- Protected Speech:
- Private, political, commercial, and artistic speech.
- Conduct and silence as speech.
- Speech on the internet.
- Unprotected Speech:
- Obscenity, fighting words, incitement to violence, threats.
- Defamation (libel and slander), perjury, blackmail, solicitation/conspiracy.
West VA Board of Ed. v. Barnette (1943)
- Issue: Does mandating the Pledge of Allegiance violate free speech?
- Rule: First Amendment protects against forced speech by the government.
- Conclusion: Mandatory Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1968)
- Issue: Can a state criminalize speech promoting crime or violence for political reform?
- Rule: Speech can be prohibited if it:
- (1) incites imminent lawless action and,
- (2) is likely to produce such action.
- Conclusion: Law was unconstitutional as applied because it didn't consider if the words would lead to action.
Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)
- Issue: When can a school limit student's free speech rights?
- Rule: A school must show that speech or conduct "materially and substantially" interferes with the school to limit it.
- Conclusion: School's actions were unconstitutional; students won.
Spence v. Washington (1974)
- Issue: When is conduct considered speech?
- Rule: Conduct is speech if:
- (1) there is an intent to convey a message, and
- (2) the message is likely to be understood.
- Conclusion: Statute was unconstitutional as applied to Spence.
United States v. O’Brien (1968)
- Issue: Is burning a draft card protected conduct?
- Rule: Intermediate scrutiny - A law may regulate conduct if it:
- (1) promotes an important government interest that is content-neutral,
- (2) is not aimed at limiting speech,
- (3) is narrowly-tailored.
- Conclusion: The law is constitutional; O'Brien loses.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
- Issue: Did NH law prohibiting offensive speech in public violate free speech?
- Rule: "Fighting words" (words that inflict injury or incite breach of peace) are NOT protected.
- Conclusion: The NH law is constitutional; Chaplinsky loses.
Cohen v. California (1971)
- Issue: Does a CA law that prohibits disturbing the peace by “offensive conduct” violate free speech rights?
- Rule: To regulate speech content, a law must pass strict scrutiny
- Conclusion: Cohen won; conviction overturned.
Summary
- Fighting words (Chaplinsky)
- Silence as speech (Barnette)
- Incitement to violence (Brandenburg)
- Speech and conduct in school (Tinker v. Des Moines)
- Laws regulating conduct - Intermediate scrutiny (O’Brien)
- Conduct as speech (Spence)
- Speech Content - Strict scrutiny (Cohen)