Week 3
Manual notes:
First test on Monday Sept 29th
Slides are going to be posted before then
Oliver Wendell Holmes opinion held that the government had a clear and present duty to procesute those who had a "clear and present danger"
clear and present danger is the only basis for limiting free speech
too ambiguous and open ended
The Smith act of 1940 made it a violent crome to advocate overthrow of the government or be a member of a group that advocated the overthrow of the governemnt
The red scare
Dennis V U.S. (1951)
Twelve member of the communist party USA were prosecuted for violations of the 1940 Smith Act
Although the defendants had not called for the forcible overthrow of the government in public they had done so in private
the supreme court ruled that was sufficient enough to "establish a clear and present danger"
Yates V. U.S (1957)
The supreme court reverses the postion overturning a conviction of two communists party leaders saying advocating violence in the abstract is insufficient to sustain a conviction under the Smith Act
Evidence must proved that the defedendants advocated actual position
This decision has the effect of neutralizing the "clear ad present danger" standard established by Holmes in the Schenck decision
SCOTUS ruled 1st amendmnet protests abhorrent speech " mere advocacy of the use of force does not remove speech from 1st amendment protection"
held only speech that is likely to produce imminent lawless action can be punished. Brandenburg's abhorrent speech
The clear and present danger test of the Holmes court was replaced with the Brandenburg decision. This remains the contemporary standard for limiting speech that criticizes the government
Symbolic Speech:
Burning a flag, wearing an armband, is protected speech.
Texas V. Johnson (1989) The SCOTUS overturned a conviction under Texas law that allowed for punishment of the public destruction
Joey Johsnson was convicted under that law senteced to one year in Jail and 2000 fine
SCOTUS held Johnson's burned of the flag was protected expression under the First Amendment
1990 the court once again by 5-4 vote held that burning the flag waas allowable expressive conduct
congress has tried several times and failed to pass laws or constituitional amendments outlawing flag desecration
Trump has vowed to make flag burning should be a federal crime.
Cross burning:
Crime ordiance stipulated that placing on public or private property any, including but not limited to a burning cross or Nazi swastika, which one reasonably assumes will cause anger, alarm or resentment on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.
In 2003 by a 6-3 margin
Virginia v. Black SCOTUS upheald a virginia statue ,a virginia statue making it illegal to burn a cross in public with the intent to hurt ad intimidate others.
Sandra day o conner even though cross burning at times expressive virginia could ban cross burning because it represented a true threat
Restraints of student expression
Do school officials have a right to place limits on the first amendment rights of students
Mineersville school districts v gobits 1940 jehovahs witness chilldren object to flag salute
violation of their religious freedom
SCOTUS - judicial restraint this is not a case for the courts, the school board has the right to use means to foster national unity.
Tinker v. Des Moines 1969 -
Students do not shed their fist amendment rights in school and maintained the right to wea black armbands to protest the war in Vietnam.
Hezelwood v. kuhlmeier 1988 -
School administators have broad pwers to censor school newspaper if that action is related to "legitimate pedagogical concerns"
School admins removed stories about teen pregnancy and divorce. Principle said articles invade privacy of students and parents interviewed.
SCOTUS ruled admin do have the authority to determine appropriate content.
Morse V. Frederick 2007, upheld the right of school to impose punishment of stuent speech that promotes illegal drug use.
First test will be Monday Sept 29th
Transcripted notes