Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)

Schenck v. U.S. (1919)

• Speech can be limited if it presents a "clear and present danger."

Abrams v. U.S. (1919)

• Leaflets produced against US involvement in WWI and the Russian Revolution are not a protected form of speech because they appeal to a violent revolution.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

• Gitlow distributed copies of a socialist pamphlet telling people to strike in order to cause a change in government. First, speech was incorporated as 14th Amendment liberty interest so NY had to protect speech. However, the NY law was ruled valid; government can limit speech that presents a "dangerous tendency" even it causes no violence.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1941)

• "Fighting words" are not a protected form of speech.

Dennis v. U.S. (1950)

• The Smith Act, making it unlawful to teach or advocate the overthrow of government, was constitutional. Communists could be punished if they advocated the overthrow of the U.S. government because it created a "clear and present danger."

Yates v. U.S. (1957)

• Overturned Dennis. The Smith Act made advocacy of a principle and advocacy of a concrete action the same thing. This is unconstitutional. Advocating the overthrow of government is constitutional, advocating action is unconstitutional.

U.S. v. O'Brien (1968)

• It is illegal to burn a draft card in protest. The government can limit speech if the regulation is unrelated to content and narrowly tailored to achieve the government's interest.

Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Comm. School District (1969)

• Students are allowed to wear black armbands to school to protest against Vietnam. This form of symbolic speech is "closely akin to pure speech."

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

• Latest test for speech: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."

Miller v. California (1972)

• Established the obscenity test: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." The Court rejected the "utterly without redeeming social value" test of the Memoirs decision.

Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)

• Matt Fraser's use of sexual metaphors in a speech given to support a fellow student's candidacy for class office may be limited by the school's administration because it interferes with the educational process and violates the "fundamental values of public school eduation."

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988)

• A parody of Jerry Falwell, modeled after a liquor ad, claimed that he had an incestuous affair with his mother. A disclaimer was in small print at the bottom of the page. Falwell, as a pulibc figure, could not collect for emotional distress unless the false statement was made with "actual malice."

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

• Flag burning is a protected form of symbolic speech.

U.S. v. Eichman (1990)

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

• Minnesota's "gag law" was unconstitutional. Prior restraint (censorship of material before it is published) is not allowed, even if the printed message can be punished subsequently.

NY Times v. Sullivan (1964)

• A New York Times article accusing the Montgomery, Alabama police of arresting Martin Luther King Jr. in order to derail the civil rights movement was constitutional because its statements were not made with "actual malice" (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity).

NY Times v. U.S. (1971)

• The Pentagon Papers could be printed. Prior restraint is allowed if the material would harm national security; these papers just embarrassed the president.

Bigelow v. Virginia (1974)

• Commercial speech (speech that has a profit motive) is protected by the 1st Amendment. Therefore, Virginia could not prohibit the advertisement of abortion services.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

• Two articles from a school paper were allowed to be pulled by the administration because they were deemed "inconsistent with the shared values of a civilized social order." Furthermore, the court ruled that student publications could be limited if the limitation was "reasonably related to a legitimate pedagogical concerns." (Note the Rational Basis Test language!)

Turner Broadcasting System, Inc v. FCC (1997)

• 1992 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act required cable stations to allow public access channels. This is constitutional even though it limits their editorial content because the government has a compelling interest to preserve a multiplicity of broadcasters.

Reno v. ACLU (1997)

• The 1994 Communications Decency Act was too broadly tailored to limit internet speech which is also protected by the 1st Amendment.

Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)

• Permit requirements for parades or demonstrations are constitutional, not violations of 1st Amendment speech and assembly protections, because they are content neutral (not designed to limit one form of speech or assembly).

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 695 v. Vogt (1950)

• Picketing is prohibited outside a business unless there is a labor dispute.

Feiner v. New York (1950)

• Feiner gave a speech on a sidewalk and verbally attacked President Truman and the mayor of Syracuse. As the crowd gathered, he urged African Americans to fight for their civil rights. Members of the crowd told the police to stop Feiner, or they would. Police asked him to stop, but he wouldn't. Police arrested him to keep the peace. The Supreme Court said the arrest was just because it was meant to keep the peace, not limit speech.

Cox v. Louisiana (1965)

• Cox's speech at a rally, though it might disturb the peace, was a protected part of one's freedom of assembly.

Gregory v. City of Chicago (1969)

• Overturned Feiner v. NY. Gregory led a group of civil rights marchers to city hall in downtown Chicago. As they marched, a crowd of hecklers began to throw rocks and eggs. The police ordered the marchers to stop because violence seemed imminent. They would not stop. They were arrested. The Supreme Court ruled that the march had been peaceful, and therefore legal. If the police wanted to arrest people, it should be the hecklers.

Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972)

• Demonstrations outside of a school, with the intention of disrupting classes, are unconstitutional.

Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley (1972)

• A Chicago City's law that banned all protest outside of a school, except for labor union picketing, was an unconstitutional violation of the Equal Protection Clause because it was not content neutral.

Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner (1972)

• Protests on private property, even if open to the public (like a mall), are not a protected form of assembly.

Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York (1997)

• "Fixed buffer zones" (15ft.) around abortion clinics are allowed to limit demonstrations because they satisfy the government interest of public safety; however "floating buffer zones" (15ft. around people entering and leaving a clinic) are unconstitutional because they are unnecessary in order to achieve the government interest of public safety.

Nazis in Skokie

DeJonge v. Oregon (1937)

• DeJonge led a Communist meeting. Oregon could not limit this because he was protected by a 14th Amendment liberty interest to speech and assembly. Incorporates assembly.

NAACP v. Alabama (1958)

• Alabama required the NAACP to release membership information. The unanimous Court held that a compelled disclosure of the NAACP's membership lists would have the effect of suppressing legal association among the group's members.

Barenblatt v. U.S (1959)

• Congress can force the disclosure of someone's membership in an organization (such as the Communist Party of America) if it is designed to "aid the legislative process" and protect important government interests.

Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990)

• In distinguishing between "curriculum" and "noncurriculum student groups," the Court held that since Westside permitted other noncurricular clubs, it was prohibited under the Equal Access Act from denying equal access to any after-school club based on the content of its speech.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)