Free Speechless On Plan

Freedom of Speech:
Finding the Limits

A Lesson by Linda Weber for
Sunnylands Seminars 2009
www.annenbergclassroom.org
SUMMARY
Snapshot of Lesson
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of

speech. . . First Amendment, U.S. Constitution
Grades: Middle School; High School (Focus)
As part of the Bill of Rights, freedom of speech is guaranteed

by the Constitution, but it is not defined by it. That task is
left up to the people through a representative government that
makes the laws and a judicial system that interprets and applies the laws to resolve disputes.
Estimated Time: 3-4 days
When people bring their First Amendment challenges into

the court system and decisions are made, principles get established that help define the boundaries of free speech for
everyone.
While most Americans believe there should be some limits to
free expression, there is much disagreement about what constitutes speech and where those limits should be. Consequently, freedom of speech ends up being our most contested right.
In this lesson, students gain insight into the many challenges
involved in defining and protecting free speech. They also
learn about principles that come from Supreme Court decisions and case law that are applied to define the limits for us
today.
NOTES AND CONSIDERATIONS

This lesson presumes that students are familiar with free
speech issues and have some experience reviewing Supreme Court cases.
Technology is relied on in this lesson to enhance learning
by facilitating information access, and information gathering.
This is a self-contained lesson with a variety of resources
and activities that can be adapted to different lengths of
classes and levels of students.
Subject Focus: Civics/Government

Alignment to National Standards for Civics
and Government: Grades 5-8; Grades 9-12
Materials/Equipment Needed:
A Conversation on the Constitution with
Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sandra Day
OConnon, and Anthony M. Kennedy: Freedom of Speech, video available at:
http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/aconversation-on-the-constitution-freedom-ofspeech
Computer with internet connection and projector for class viewing.
Materials Included:
Readings and Resources
Chapter6:The RighttoFreedom of Speech
from Our Rights by David J. Bodenhamer
U.S.Constitution:First Amendment
Synopsis of Cases Referenced in Video
Student Materials
Video Follow-Up: Ten Questions
Jigsaw Activity: A Collection of Supreme
Court Cases: Free Speech
Activity: Matters of Interpretation
Activity: Free Speech Scenarios to Decide
Teacher Materials
Supplement for jigsaw activity
Answer Key: Ten Questions
National Standards for Civics & Government
Standards level detail for grades 5-8, 9-12
TOPICS
Constitutional foundations
Freedom of speech
Rights and responsibilities
Role of government
U.S. Supreme Court
Democratic principles
NATIONAL STANDARDS
Document: National Standards for Civics and Government (1994) Center for Civic Education
http://www.civiced.org/index.php?page=stds
Grades 5-8 Organizing Questions
The national content standards for civics and government are organized under five significant questions. The
following outline lists the high-level organizing questions supported by this lesson.
I. What are civic life, politics, and government?

A. What is civic life? What is politics? What is government? Why are government and

politics necessary? What purposes should government serve?

B. What are the essential characteristics of limited and unlimited government?

C. What are the nature and purposes of constitutions?
II. What are the foundations of the American political system?

A. What is the American idea of constitutional government?

C. What is American political culture?

D. What values and principles are basic to American constitutional democracy?
III. How does the government established by the Constitution embody the purposes, values, and
principles of American democracy?

E. What is the place of law in the American constitutional system?

V. What are the roles of the citizen in American democracy?

B. What are the rights of citizens?

C. What are the responsibilities of citizens?

D. What dispositions or traits of character are important to the preservation and improvement

of American constitutional democracy?

E. How can citizens take part in civic life?
Grades 9-12 Organizing Questions

The national content standards for civics and government are organized under five significant questions. The
following outline lists the high-level organizing questions supported by this lesson.
I. What are civic life, politics, and government?

A. What is civic life? What is politics? What is government? Why are government and

politics necessary? What purposes should government serve?

B. What are the essential characteristics of limited and unlimited government?
II. What are the foundations of the American political system?

C. What is American political culture?

D. What values and principles are basic to American constitutional democracy?
III. How does the government established by the Constitution embody the purposes, values, and principles of American
democracy?

B. How is the national government organized, and what does it do?

D. What is the place of law in the American constitutional system?
V. What are the roles of the citizen in American democracy?

B. What are the rights of citizens?

C. What are the responsibilities of citizens?

D. What civic dispositions or traits of private and public character are important to the

preservation and improvement of American constitutional democracy?

E. How can citizens take part in civic life?
Note: A more detailed standards-level alignment related to these questions can be found in the Standards section at end
of this lesson plan.
STUDENT OUTCOMES
Knowledge, skills, and dispositions

Students will . . .
1. State the constitutional basis for freedom of speech.
2. Explain the importance of free speech in a democratic society.
3. Explain events that prompted courts to define principles for deciding free speech issues.
4. Develop an appreciation for the complexities involved in finding the limits to free speech.
5. Draw conclusions about the role of citizens in defining free speech for all Americans.
6. Use sound reasoning to defend a position.
Integrated Skills
1. Information literacy skills

Students will . . .
Analyze primary and secondary sources

to gather information
Organize and analyze information
Use skimming and search skills.
Make informed decisions.
Use technology as a tool for learning.
Analyze information for trends and

patterns.
5. Thinking skills

Students will . . .
Describe and recall information

Explain ideas or concepts
Make connections between concepts and
principles
Draw conclusions
Synthesize information
Use sound reasoning and logic
Discern the facts
2. Media literacy skills

Students will . . .
6. Problem-solving skills

Students will . . .
3. Communication skills

Students will . . .
7. Participation skills

Students will . . .
Read, view, and listen to information

delivered via different media formats
in order to make inferences and gain
meaning
Write and speak clearly to contribute

ideas, information, and express own
point of view.
Listen for understanding
Collaborate with others to deepen
understanding
4. Study skills

Students will...
Manage time and materials

Organize work effectively
Ask meaningful questions

Consider diverse perspectives
Support decisions with the facts
Explore alternative solutions
Contribute to small and large group discussion

Work responsibly both individually and with
diverse people.
Express own beliefs, feelings, and convictions.
Show initiative and self-direction.
ASSESSMENT
Evidence of understanding may be gathered from student performance related to the following:
1. Student activities
2. Participation in small and large group discussions
VOCABULARY
abridgeto diminish or reduce in scope.
case lawlaw established by judicial decisions as distinguished from law created by legislation.
freedomthe quality or state of being free: as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or
action.
freedom of speechthe right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions
based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations.
libertyfreedom from external (as governmental) restraint, compulsion, or interference in engaging in the
pursuits or conduct of ones choice to the extent that they are lawful and not harmful to others.
rightsa persons justifiable claim, protected by law, to act or be treated in a certain way.
rule of lawthe rule of law exists when a states constitution functions as the supreme law of the land, when
the statutes enacted and enforced by the government invariably conform to the constitution.
speechforms of expression used to communicate an idea or a thought, not just in words.

Sources for Definitions

FindLawLaw Dictionary
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/
Annenberg Classroom Glossary
http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/terms
LESSON OVERVIEW
DAY 1:
Simple and Complicated
Video Day: In the video, Supreme Court Justices engage a group of high school students in a dialogue on free speech to
challenge their thinking about the complexity of the First Amendment right and provide insight into the work of a Court
concerned with protecting it.
DAY 2 & 3
Matters for Interpretation

In jigsaw fashion, students work to review a collection of U.S. Supreme Court cases related to free speech in order to
identify and classify principles established by the Court that help define the limits for us today.
DAY 4
You Decide
Students analyze four free speech scenarios to decide what matters in light of the principles studied and have an opportunity to express their own points of view.
TEACHING ACTIVITIES
DAY 1: Simple and Complicated

Overview:
Students view a video from Sunnylands Seminars 2009 in which Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day OConnor engage high school students in a dialogue about free speech to challenge their thinking
about the complexity of the First Amendment right and provide insight into the work of a Court responsible for protecting
it.
Goal: Experience the challenges involved in defining free speech by considering whether different factors matter.
A Conversation on the Constitution with Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sandra Day OConnon, and Anthony M. Kennedy:
Freedom of Speech, video available at:
http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/a-conversation-on-the-constitution-freedom-of-speech
Computer with Internet connection and projector for class viewing
Student materials (Included):
Ten Questions (1 per student)
U.S. Supreme Court Cases Named in A Conversation on the Constitution: Free Speech
Chapter 6: Right to Freedom of Speech from Our Rights by David J. Bodenhamer
Also available online at

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/files/documents/books/our%20rights/chapter_6_our_rights.pdf
Teacher materials
Before Viewing
1. Review the wording in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government
for a redress of grievances. U.S. Constitution, First Amendment
2. Review the definitions. Compare and contrast definitions of freedom and liberty.
3. Review:
Responsibilities of the 3 branches of government (legislative branch makes the laws; judicial branch interprets the
law; executive branch carries out the law)
Define democracy as government by the people. The people get to decide.
Review the structure of the U.S. court system, the role of the U.S. Supreme Court, and how cases get to the Supreme
Court. (see chart included)
Briefly review how the Supreme Court has interpreted the right to free speech:
The U.S. Supreme Court as the ultimate protector and interpreter of the Constitution has ruled that the government
may sometimes be allowed to limit speech. For example, the government may limit or ban libel (the communication
of false statements about a person that may injure his or her reputation), obscenity, fighting words, and words that
present a clear and present danger of causing violence. In other words, freedom of speech is not absolute.
The government also may regulate speech by limiting the time, place or manner in which it is made. For example,
the government may require activists to obtain a permit before holding a large protest rally on a public street.
When the Supreme Court issues a decision in a free speech case, that decision helps define the parameters of free
speech in this countryone case as a time. Supreme Court cases and cases from other courts form a collective body
of cases known as case law. From case law we have a better sense of free speech boundaries. Cases brought to a
court by ordinary people concerned that their right to free speech has been denied helps define the boundaries of
free expression and ensures its protection for everyone.
4. Briefly discuss the following cases as they are referred to in the video:
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) (Tinker case referred to by Justice OConnor)
Texas v. Johnson (1989) (Flag burning case referred to by Justice Kennedy)
Morse v. Frederick (2007) (Mentioned by Justice OConnor)
Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) (Speech at a high school assembly featured)
Lee v. Weisman (1992) (High school commencement case featured )
5. Distribute the Ten Questions and discuss expectations for answers.
During and After Viewing:
Students take notes and respond to questions on the handout: Ten Questions. Students may need time to view the video
again at home so they can write more complete responses.
Homework:
Finish the Ten Questions.

Read: Chapter 6: Right to Freedom of Speech from Our Rights by David J. Bodenhamer Highlight any
principles or factors that were used to evaluate or decide free speech cases.
TEACHING ACTIVITIES
DAYS 2-3: Simple and Complicated

Overview: In jigsaw fashion, students work to review a collection of U.S. Supreme Court cases related to free speech in
order to identify and classify principles established by the Court that help define the limits for us today.
Goal: Identify principles set forth in U.S. Supreme Court decisions on free speech cases.
A Conversation on the Constitution with Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sandra Day OConnon, and Anthony M. Kennedy:
Freedom of Speech, 30-minute video available at:
http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/a-conversation-on-the-constitution-freedom-of-speech
Computer lab
62-3x5 cards or squares of paper (1 per Supreme Court case)
highlighters
Student materials
Jigsaw Activity: A Collection of Supreme Court Cases: Free Speech
Teacher materials
Teacher Guide: A Collection of Supreme Court Cases: Free Speech (Companion sections add background information
to help with discussions related to the student activity.)
Procedure:
1. Go over the homework assignment from Day 1 and ask the students to share the principles they highlighted.
2. Distribute the jigsaw activity and go over the instructions.
3. Determine the best way to divide up the 62 Supreme Court cases. Students will research assigned cases to complete the
columns on the chart.
4. Distribute one 3x5 card per case.
5. Ask students to write the case name, date, and the free speech principle it established or upheld.
6. Allow enough time for all work to be completed.
7. Conclude the activity with a large group discussion that that compiles all the responses for analysis. Draw and label a
big chart on the board that allows space for the cards to be taped as used. An example follows: (Text in red font is for
teacher reference during this time.)
Primary Consideration
Forum (public/private)
Protected Speech
Unprotected (Limited)
Speech
Nature of content criteria
Public
After student cases are

taped, group under headers
such as:
After student cases are

taped, group under headers
such as:
Time, place, manner
Public
Nature of content criteria
Private
Time, place, manner
Private
political speech
ideological speech
personal beliefs
symbolic speech
expressive conduct
commercial speech
true threats
fighting words
obscene language
clear and present
danger
libel with malics
defamation
invasion of privacy
on private property
8. When the class reconvenes, ask for a volunteer to share a case as a starting point. Tape the case to the board where it
belongs.
9. Important: Students should be adding information to their own charts as others present.
10. Ask if there are any similar cases. If so, students share.
11. Discuss and correct any misinterpretations. Refer to the Teachers Chart for supporting information.
12. Tape like cases together in columns and group within columns if possible. Allow students to name the groups.
13. When everyone has shared, review the cards on the board and the categories of protected speech they represent. Use
markers to highlight the cards and distinguish the sub groups.
14. Discuss what qualifies as unprotected speech.
15. Assign Homework: Students complete the activity Matters of Interpretation using the information gained from the
jigsaw activity.
TEACHING ACTIVITIES
DAY 4: You Decide
Overview: Students analyze four free speech scenarios to decide what matters in light of the principles studied and have
an opportunity to express their own points of view.
Goal: Use sound reasoning to make decisions and support opinions related to free speech matters.
Student materials
Completed Matters of Interpretation
Completed Jigsaw Activity: A Collection of Supreme Court Cases: Free Speech
Procedure:
1. Divide the class into discussion groups.
2. Distribute the page with the scenarios to each student.
3. Allow enough time for the groups to discuss each scenario. Monitor the time and prompt groups to move to each
topic so they dont get stuck.

Ground Rules
There are no right or wrong answers as court rulings vary, too.
All viewpoints are welcome as long as they are based on sound reasoning.
Apply principles used in other court cases to support conclusions. (Students may use their earlier work
for reference.)
4. Reconvene for a large group discussion.
Note: Scenarios 2 and 3 are drawn from descriptions of the following real cases:
BLOGGER CASE:
In Bivens v. Albuquerque Public Schools, the judge questioned whether sagging pants conveyed any particular message:
Sagging is not necessarily associated with any single racial or cultural group, and sagging is seen by some merely as a
fashion trend followed by many adolescents all over the United States. The judge said that even if sagging somehow constituted a message, the student failed to establish that reasonable observers would understand any message coming from
the wearing of sagging pants.
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/faq.aspx?id=13002
DRESS CODE CASE: In 2008, the 2nd Circuit Court ruled for the school officials in Doninger v. Niehoff 527 F.3d 41
(2nd Cir. 2008) School officials could punish a student for blogging critical comments about a school administrator. We
have determined, however, that a student may be disciplined for expressive conduct, even conduct occurring off school
grounds, when this conduct would foreseeably create a risk of substantial disruption within the school environment, or at
least when it was similarly foreseeable that the off-campus expression might also reach campus, the court concluded.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/doninger-v-niehoff
5. Conclude by asking students how they would respond to someone who made this statement:
I have a right to free speech, so I can say whatever I want to, however I want to say it, and wherever I want to say it.
10
EXTENSION ACTIVITIES
Have more time to teach?
Debate Internet speech issues raised in this article:

Student Online Expression: What Do the Internet and MySpace Mean for Students First Amendment Rights?
By David L. Hudson Jr., Research Attorney , First Amendment Center
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/PDF/student.internet.speech.pdf
Summarize the findings related to freedom of speech in this survey for the First Amendment Center: State of the
First Amendment 2008
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//about.aspx?item=state_first_amendment_2008&SearchString=survey
RESOURCES
Annenberg Classroom
Our Rights by David J. Bodenhamer

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/our-rights
First Amendment timelines (interactive and PDF)

http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/issue/first-amendment
Other Resources
Oyez

http://oyez.org
LandmarkSupremeCourtCases
http://www.landmarkcases.org/korematsu/home.html
Exploring Constitutional Conflicts
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/studentspeech.htm
First Amendment Center

K-12 Public School: Student Expression

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/studentexpression/index.aspx
Student Press Law Center

http://www.splc.org/
Bill of Rights Institute

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/
To suppress free speech is a double wrong.

It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.
Frederick Douglass
11
Readings & Resources

Chapter 6: The Right to Freedom of Speech from Our Rights by David J. Bodenhamer
U.S. Constitution: First Amendment
12
Chapter 6: The Right to Freedom of Speech

from Our Rights by David J. Bodenhamer
chapTeR 6
The Right to
Freedom of Speech
ree speech is our most fundamentaland our most contestedright. It is

an essential freedom because it is how we protect all of our other rights
and liberties. If we could not speak openly about the policies and actions
of government, then we would have no effective way to participate in the
democratic process or protest when we believed governmental behavior threatened our security or our freedom. Although Americans agree that free speech
is central to democratic government, we disagree sharply about what we mean
by speech and about where the right begins and ends. Speech clearly includes
words, but does it also include conduct or symbols? Certainly, we have the right
to criticize the government, but can we also advocate its overthrow? Does the
right to free speech allow us to incite hate or use foul language in public?
The framers of the Bill of Rights understood the importance of free expression and protected it under the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law. .
. abridging the freedom of speech. Both English history and their own colonial
past had taught them to value this right, but their definition of free speech was
much more limited than ours. Less than a decade after the amendments ratification, Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1798, making it a crime to criticize
the government. Many citizens believed government could forbid speech that
threatened public order, as witnessed by numerous early nineteenth-century
laws restricting speech against slavery. During the Civil War, thousands of antiwar protestors were arrested on the theory that the First Amendment did not
protect disloyal speech. Labor unrest in the 1800s and 1890s brought similar
restraints on the right of politically unpopular groups, such as socialists, to criticize governments failure to protect working people from the ills of industrialization and economic depression.
Freedom of speech did not become a subject of important court cases until the twentieth century when the Supreme Court announced one of the most
amous principles in constitutional law, the clear and present danger test. The
test was straightforward: government could not restrict speech unless it posed
a known, immediate threat to public safety. The standard sought to balance the
need for order with the right to speak freely. At its heart was the question of
proximity, or closeness, and degree. If speech brought about an action that was
dangerous under the immediate circumstances, such as falsely yelling fire in
a crowded theater, then it did not enjoy First Amendment protection.With this
case, Schenck v. United States (1919), the Court began a decades-long process
of seeking the right balance between free speech and public safety.
The balance, at first, was almost always on the side of order and security.
Another case decided in 1919, Debs v. United States, illustrates how restrictive
the test could be. Eugene Debs was a labor leader from Indiana who had run
for President four times as the candidate of the Socialist Party of America, once
The free communication of

thoughts and opinions is one
of the invaluable rights of
man; and every citizen may
freely speak, write and print
on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that
liberty.
Pennsylvania Constitution
(1790)
The RighT To FReedom oF Speech 57
13
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man
in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. . . . The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present
danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress
has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Schenck v. United States (1919)
polling more than one million votes. At a June 1918 rally in Chicago, while
U.S. troops were fighting in World War I, he told the working-class crowd, You
need to know you are fit for something better than slavery and cannon fodder.
He was sentenced under an existing federal statute to twenty years in prison for
inciting disloyalty and obstruction of military recruitment, which the Supreme
Court upheld.
For the next five decades, the Court wrestled with the right balance between
speech and order. Much of what defined freedom of speech emerged from challenges to the governments ability to regulate or punish political protest. Each
case brought a new set of circumstances that allowed the justices an opportunity
to modify or extend the clear and present danger test. Many decisions recognized the abstract right of individuals to speak freely, but each one hedged this
right in important ways. Always in the background were conditions that pointed
to disorder, dissension, and dangerthe Great Depression, World War II, and
the Cold War, among themso the justices were cautious in expanding a right
that would expose America to greater threats. These cases, however, gradually
introduced a new perspective on the value of free speech in a democracy, namely, the belief that truth is best reached by the free trade in ideas.
The belief that society is best served by a marketplace of ideas open to all
opinions, no matter how radical, ultimately prevailed. In 1927, the Court had endorsed what came to be called the bad tendency test: if officials believed speech
was likely to lead to a bad result, such as urging people to commit a violent act,
it was not protected under the First Amendment even if no violence occurred.
By 1969, however, similar facts produced a different outcome. Ku Klux Klan
members in Ohio invited a television station to film their rally. Waving firearms,
they shouted racist and anti-Semitic slurs and threatened to march on Congress
before their leader was arrested and later convicted under a state law banning
speech that had a tendency to incite violence. The Supreme Court overturned his
conviction in Brandenburg v. Ohio and established the rule still in effect today:
the First Amendment protects the right to advocate the use of force or violence,
but it does not safeguard speech likely to incite or produce an immediate unlawful act. The Brandenburg test has allowed Nazis to march, Klan members to
hold rallies, and other extremist groups to promote views far outside the mainstream of public opinion.With few exceptionsfighting words and obscenity,
for examplegovernment today cannot regulate the content of speech.
Even as society was coming to accept a wide range of political ideas, opposition to an unpopular war raised other questions about the limits and forms
of free speech. By the mid- to late 1960s, the Vietnam War divided Americans.
58 ouR RighTS
14
Although many citizens supported the use of U.S. troops to stop communism in
Asia, a growing minority, including many draft-age young people, took to the
streets to oppose the war. The protestors did not limit their efforts to antiwar
speeches; they also wore shirts with obscene slogans, burned draft cards, and
desecrated American flags. Using these symbols to protest, they argued, was
a form of free speech. Soon, the Supreme Court faced the question squarely in
a case involving a youthful protestor from the nations heartland: is symbolic
speechmessages using symbols or signs, not wordsprotected by the First
Amendment?
The first large-scale American demonstration against the Vietnam War occurred in November 1965 when more than 25,000 protestors converged on the
nations capital. Fifty Iowans made the long bus ride, and on the way home they
decided to make their opposition known locally by wearing black armbands to
work and school. One member of the peace contingent was Lorena Tinker, the
wife of a Des Moines Methodist minister and mother of five children. Mary Beth
Tinker, a thirteen-year-old eighth grader, followed her mothers suggestion and
became one of a handful of local public school students who wore this symbol
of protest to school. This act placed her in the middle of a national controversy
about student rights and freedom of expression.
In many ways, Mary Beth was a normal eighth grader. She was a good
student who enjoyed singing, spending time with her friends, and taking part in
church activities.What made her different was a commitment to social justice,
a passion encouraged by her parents, both of whom were known for their activism. Her parents wanted their children to share their moral and social values,
and Mary Beth responded eagerly to their invitation to participate with them.
By the time she became a teenager, she already had attended her first protest,
accompanying her father to a rally about fair housing.
Mary Beth Tinker, her brother, John, and a handful of Des Moines students
planned their demonstration for December 16, 1965. The students aim was not
to protest the war but to mourn its casualties, Vietnamese and American, and
to show support for proposed peace talks. School officials, however, promised
to suspend anyone who came to school wearing the armbands, and the school
principal suspended Mary Beth and sent her home. She was one of five students
suspended that day for wearing the offending cloth. Significantly, the school ban
applied only to armbands, in other words, to students who opposed the Vietnam
War; a number of students that day wore an array of other symbols, including
the Iron Cross, a Nazi medal.
When the school board upheld the suspensions, the Tinkers persuaded the
Iowa Civil Liberties Union to take the case to federal court. Two lower federal
courts agreed with the schools action, rebuffing the argument that the policy
violated the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. The Supreme Court decided otherwise. In its 7-to-2 decision, announced in February 1969, the justices
held that the wearing of armbands is a symbolic act akin to pure speech and
protected by the right to free expression. The protesting students posed no threat
to the order required for effective instruction, nor did the wearing of armbands
interfere with the schools educational mission. In this instance, the balance between order and liberty was weighted on the side of the First Amendment. Students and teachers, the Court concluded, do not shed their constitutional rights
to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.
Symbolic speech has been the focus of some of our greatest constitutional
drama.Words may be powerful and provocative, but symbols are often more

15
Restriction of free thought

and free speech is the most
dangerous of all subversions.
It is the one un-American act
that could most easily defeat
us.
Justice William O. Douglas,
The One Un-American Act
(1953)
60 ouR RighTS
16
inflammatory because they are visual and evoke an emotional response. We live
in an age when we use pictures and symbols to convey important messages,
whether in politics or the marketplace. For these reasons, the Supreme Courts
recognition of symbolic speech as a right protected by the First Amendment
has been a significant development. Twenty-five years after Mary Beth Tinker
put on her armband in remembrance of the war dead, Life magazine featured a
handful of civil liberties cases to celebrate the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights.
Mary Beths case was included, even though the rights of students remained,
and still are, more limited than those of adult citizens. But her actions as an
eighth grader expanded our conception of constitutionally protected speech to
include the symbols we use to express our convictions.
More than most other recent decisions, cases involving symbolic speech
have revealed how contentious the right of free speech remains in our society. In
1989, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected individuals
who burned the American flag in protest. This decision was highly controversial,
and it has resulted in numerous attempts to amend the Constitution to protect the
flag and, in effect, limit speech in this circumstance. The outcome of this effort
is uncertain, but the debate raises important questions: What role does this right
play in our democracy? How does it contribute to our liberty as Americans?
The right to speak freely, without restraint, is essential to democratic government because it helps us develop better laws and policies through challenge,
rebuttal, and debate.When we all have the ability to speak in the public forum,
offensive opinions can be combated with an opposing argument, a more inclusive approach, a more effective idea. We tolerate offensive speech and protect
the right to speak even for people who would deny it to us because we believe
that exposing their thoughts and opinions to open debate will result in the discovery of truth. This principle is an old one in Western thought. U.S. Supreme
Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmess dissent in Abrams v. United States, a
1919 case suppressing free speech, is a classic statement of this view: The best
test of truth is the power of thought to get itself accepted in the competition of
the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which [the publics] wishes
safely can be carried out.
Governmental actions to deny differing points of view, even distasteful or
unpopular opinions, rob us of the range of ideas that might serve the interests
of society more effectively. In a case decided almost a decade before Tinker v.
Des Moines, the Supreme Court found this rationale especially applicable to
the classroom. The Nations future, the justices wrote, depends upon leaders
trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues. As a nation, we are willing to live with
the often bitter conflict over ideas because we believe it will lead to truth and to
improved lives for all citizens.We recognize that freedom of speech is the first
freedom of democracy, as the English poet John Milton argued during his own
seventeenth-century struggle to gain this right: Give me the liberty to know, to
utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties. The ability to speak freely allows us to pursue truth, to challenge falsehoods, to correct
mistakesall are necessary for a healthy society.
Free speech also reflects a commitment to individual freedom and autonomy, the right to decide for ourselves and to pursue our own destiny. Throughout
our history, we have been so committed to individual choice that many foreign
observers believe it is our most characteristic trait. We see it reflected daily in
everything from advertising slogansHave It Your Way to fashion state-
ments, but fail to recognize how closely freedom is tied to the right to speak
freely. Free speech guarantees us an individual voice, no matter how far removed our opinions and beliefs are from mainstream society. With this voice we
are free to contribute as individuals to the marketplace of ideas or a marketplace
of goods, as well as to decide how and under what circumstances we will join
with others to decide social and governmental policies.
A commitment to free speech, of course, will not resolve all conflict, not
if our history is any guide.The debate is most contentious during times of war
or other moments when national security is at stake. Even thenperhaps especially thenwe will continue to fight over words and symbols because they
express our deepest hopes and our most worrisome fears. This contest over what
speech is acceptable and what is not has been a constant theme of our past.
Rarely do these struggles produce a neat consensus. More often, intemperate
rhetoric and bitter division have been their legacy, and this angry clamor is one
of the basic noises of our history.What makes the struggle to protect free speech
worthwhile is its ability to serve as a lever for change.When we practice our
right to speak openly, we are defining the contours of our democracy. It is messy
work, but through it, we keep the Constitution alive and, with it, our dreams of
a just society.

17
Free Trade in Ideas

Jacob Abrams was a Russian immigrant and anarchist convicted of violating the Sedition Act of 1918, which made it a crime to advocate anything that would impede the
war effort during World War I. In 1917 Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., had written
the Courts opinion in Schenck v. United States, upholding similar convictions because
Congress had a right to regulate speech that posed a clear and present danger to public
safety. But by the time Abramss appeal reached the Court in 1919, Holmes had modified his views. Disturbed by antiradical hysteria, he dissented from the majoritys decision
upholding Abramss conviction in Abrams v. United States. His eloquent discussion of the
connection between freedom of speech and the search for truth soon became the standard
used by the Supreme Court to judge free speech cases until Brandenberg v. Ohio in 1972.
The First Amendment, Holmes reasoned, protected the expression of all opinions unless
they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes
of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.
But as against dangers peculiar to war, as against
others, the principle of the right to free speech is always the same. It is only the present danger of immediate evil or an intent to bring it about that warrants Congress in setting a limit to the expression
of opinion where private rights are not concerned.
Congress certainly cannot forbid all effort to change
the mind of the country. Now nobody can suppose
that the surreptitious publishing of a silly leaflet by
an unknown man, without more, would present any
immediate danger that its opinions would hinder the
success of the government arms or have any appreciable tendency to do so. . . .
Persecution for the expression of opinions seems
to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your
premises or your power and want a certain result
with all your heart you naturally express your wishes
in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think
the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has
squared the circle, or that you do not care whole
heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your
power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they
may come to believe even more than they believe
the very foundations of their own conduct that the
ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade
62 ouR RighTS
18
in ideasthat the best test of truth is the power of

the thought to get itself accepted in the competition
of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon
which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at
any rate is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year if
not every day we have to wager our salvation upon
some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge.
While that experiment is part of our system I think
that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts
to check the expression of opinions that we loathe
and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so
imminently threaten immediate interference with the
lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country. . . .
Only the emergency that makes it immediately dangerous to leave the correction of evil counsels to time
warrants making any exception to the sweeping command, Congress shall make no law abridging the
freedom of speech. Of course I am speaking only
of expressions of opinion and exhortations, which
were all that were uttered here, but I regret that I cannot put into more impressive words my belief that in
their conviction upon this indictment the defendants
were deprived of their rights under the Constitution
of the United States.
Malicious Words versus

Free Communication
In response to fears about imminent wars with France in 1798, the Federalist-controlled Congress passed a series of four acts known collectively as the Alien and Sedition
Acts. Section 2 of the Sedition Act made it a crime to make defamatory statements about
the government or President. (Sedition is an action inciting resistance to lawful authority
and tending to lead to the overthrow of the government.) The act was designed to suppress
political opposition. Its passage by Congress reveals how limited the definition of the right
of free speech was for some Americans only a few years after the ratification of the First
Amendment.
Sec. 2. . . . That if any person shall write, print, utter,
or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written,
printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and
willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering
or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious
writing or writings against the government of the
United States, or either house of the Congress of the
United States, or the President of the United States,
with intent to defame the said government, or either
house of the said Congress, or the said President, or
to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or
disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any
of them, the hatred of the good people of the United
States, or to stir up sedition within the United States,
or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for

opposing or resisting any law of the United Sates, or
any act of the President of the United States, done
in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in
him vested by the constitution of the United States,
or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or
to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any
foreign nation against the United States, their people
or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having
jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.
James Madison, congressman from Virginia, and Thomas Jefferson, the sitting Vice
President, secretly drafted resolutions protesting the Sedition Act as unconstitutional. The
Virginia and Kentucky legislatures passed these resolutions in 1798. Both resolutions especially pointed to the acts violation of First Amendment protections, as seen in the Virginia
Resolution here.
Resolved, . . . That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming
infractions of the Constitution in the two late cases
of the Alien and Sedition Acts passed at the last
session of Congress; the first of which exercises a
power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial
powers to those of executive, subverts the general
principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the
federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the
constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a
power, which more than any other, ought to produce
universal alarm, because it is levelled against that
right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people
thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only
effectual guardian of every other right.

19
That this state having by its Convention, which

ratified the federal Constitution,expressly declared,
that among other essential rights, the Liberty of
Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled,
abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority
of the United States, and from its extreme anxiety
to guard these rights from every possible attack of
sophistry or ambition, having with other states, rec-
ommended an amendment for that purpose, which

amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable inconsistency,
and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were
now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one
of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the
establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to
the other.
The Sedition Act expired in 1801 but not until a number of the Federalists opponents,
including Congressman Matthew Lyon of Vermont, had been convicted of violating the
law.Today, historians consider the Sedition Act to have been a gross misuse of government
power. In 1798, the Kentucky Resolutions focused on the rights of states to determine the
limits of free speech.
Resolved, that it is true as a general principle, and is
also expressly declared by one of the amendments
to the Constitution, that the powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people; and that no power
over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or
freedom of the press being delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
64 ouR RighTS
20
States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of

right remain, and were reserved to the States or the
people: that thus was manifested their determination
to retain to themselves the right of judging how far
the licentiousness of speech and of the press may
be abridged without lessening their useful freedom,
and how far those abuses which cannot be separated
from their use should be tolerated, rather than the
use be destroyed.
The Constitution of the United States: First Amendment

First Amendment - The Text
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for
a redress of grievances.
On September 25, 1789, Congress transmitted to the states twelve proposed amendments. Two of these, which involved
congressional representation and pay, were not adopted. The remaining ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights,
were ratified on December 15, 1791.
First Amendment - The Meaning
Freedom of Speech and of the Press: The First Amendment allows citizens to express and to be exposed to a wide range of
opinions and views. It was intended to ensure a free exchange of ideas even if the ideas are unpopular.
Freedom of speech encompasses not only the spoken and written word, but also all kinds of expression (including nonverbal communications, such as sit-ins, art, photographs, films and advertisements). Under its provisions, the media
including television, radio and the Internet is free to distribute a wide range of news, facts, opinions and pictures. The
amendment protects not only the speaker, but also the person who receives the information. The right to read, hear, see
and obtain different points of view is a First Amendment right as well.
But the right to free speech is not absolute. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government sometimes may be allowed to limit speech. For example, the government may limit or ban libel (the communication of false statements about a
person that may injure his or her reputation), obscenity, fighting words, and words that present a clear and present danger
of inciting violence. The government also may regulate speech by limiting the time, place or manner in which it is made.
For example the government may require activists to obtain a permit before holding a large protest rally on a public street.
Freedom of Assembly and Right to Petition the Government: The First Amendment also protects the freedom of assembly,
which can mean physically gathering with a group of people to picket or protest; or associating with one another in groups
for economic, political or religious purposes.
The First Amendment also protects the right not to associate, which means that the government cannot force people to join
a group they do not wish to join. A related right is the right to petition the government, including everything from signing
a petition to filing a lawsuit.
Freedom of Religion: The First Amendments free exercise clause allows a person to hold whatever religious beliefs he
or she wants, and to exercise that belief by attending religious services, praying in public or in private, proselytizing or
wearing religious clothing, such as yarmulkes or headscarves. Also included in the free exercise clause is the right not to
believe in any religion, and the right not to participate in religious activities.
Second, the establishment clause prevents the government from creating a church, endorsing religion in general, or favoring one set of religious beliefs over another. As the U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, the establishment clause was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state,
although the degree to which government should accommodate religion in public life has been debated in numerous
Supreme Court decisions since then.
Source: Justice Learnings Guide to the Constitution: What it says. What it means.
http://www.justicelearning.org/
21
SynopsisofCasesReferencedinVideo
AConversationontheConstitution:FreeSpeech
1. Tinkerv.DesMoinesIndependentCommunitySchoolDistrict(1969)(ReferredtobyJusticeOConnor)
BackgroundFacts:JohnTinker,15yearsold,hissisterMaryBethTinker,13yearsold,andChristopher
Echardt,16yearsold,decidedalongwiththeirparentstoprotesttheVietnamWarbywearingblack
armbandstotheirDesMoinesschoolsduringtheChristmasholidayseason.Uponlearningoftheir
intentions,andfearingthatthearmbandswouldprovokedisturbances,theprincipalsoftheDesMoines
schooldistrictresolvedthatallstudentswearingarmbandsbeaskedtoremovethemorfacesuspension.
WhentheTinkersiblingsandChristopherworetheirarmbandstoschool,theywereaskedtoremove
them.Whentheyrefused,theyweresuspendeduntilafterNewYear'sDay.
Question:Doesaprohibitionagainstthewearingofarmbandsinpublicschool,asaformofsymbolic
protest,violatetheFirstAmendment'sfreedomofspeechprotections?
Conclusion:TheCourtdecidedthatthewearingofarmbandswas"closelyakinto'purespeech'"and
protectedbytheFirstAmendment.Schoolenvironmentsimplylimitationsonfreeexpression,buthere
theprincipalslackedjustificationforimposinganysuchlimits.Theprincipalshadfailedtoshowthatthe
forbiddenconductwouldsubstantiallyinterferewithappropriateschooldiscipline.
2. Texasv.Johnson(1989)(FlagburningcasereferredtobyJusticeKennedy)
BackgroundFacts:In1984,infrontoftheDallasCityHall,GregoryLeeJohnsonburnedanAmericanflag
asameansofprotestagainstReaganadministrationpolicies.Johnsonwastriedandconvictedundera
Texaslawoutlawingflagdesecration.Hewassentencedtooneyearinjailandassesseda$2,000fine.
AftertheTexasCourtofCriminalAppealsreversedtheconviction,thecasewenttotheSupremeCourt.
Question:IsthedesecrationofanAmericanflag,byburningorotherwise,aformofspeechthatis
protectedundertheFirstAmendment?
Conclusion:Ina5to4decision,theCourtheldthatJohnson'sburningofaflagwasprotectedexpression
undertheFirstAmendment.TheCourtfoundthatJohnson'sactionsfellintothecategoryofexpressive
conductandhadadistinctivelypoliticalnature.Thefactthatanaudiencetakesoffensetocertainideas
orexpression,theCourtfound,doesnotjustifyprohibitionsofspeech.TheCourtalsoheldthatstate
officialsdidnothavetheauthoritytodesignatesymbolstobeusedtocommunicateonlylimitedsetsof
messages,notingthat"[i]fthereisabedrockprincipleunderlyingtheFirstAmendment,itisthatthe
Governmentmaynotprohibittheexpressionofanideasimplybecausesocietyfindstheideaitself
offensiveordisagreeable."
3. Morsev.Frederick(2007)(MentionedbyJusticeOConnor)
BackgroundFacts:Ataschoolsupervisedevent,JosephFrederickheldupabannerwiththemessage
"BongHits4Jesus,"aslangreferencetomarijuanasmoking.PrincipalDeborahMorsetookawaythe
bannerandsuspendedFrederickfortendays.Shejustifiedheractionsbycitingtheschool'spolicy
againstthedisplayofmaterialthatpromotestheuseofillegaldrugs.Fredericksuedunder42U.S.C.
1983,thefederalcivilrightsstatute,allegingaviolationofhisFirstAmendmentrighttofreedomof
speech.
Question:DoestheFirstAmendmentallowpublicschoolstoprohibitstudentsfromdisplayingmessages
promotingtheuseofillegaldrugsatschoolsupervisedevents?
Conclusion:TheCourtruledthatschoolofficialscanprohibitstudentsfromdisplayingmessagesthat
promoteillegaldruguse.ChiefJusticeJohnRoberts'majorityopinionheldthatalthoughstudentsdo
22
Page1of2
SynopsisofCasesReferencedinVideo
AConversationontheConstitution:FreeSpeech
havesomerighttopoliticalspeechevenwhileinschool,thisrightdoesnotextendtoprodrugmessages
thatmayunderminetheschool'simportantmissiontodiscouragedruguse.Themajorityheldthat
Frederick'smessage,though"cryptic,"wasreasonablyinterpretedaspromotingmarijuanause
equivalentto"[Take]bonghits"or"bonghits[areagoodthing]."InrulingforMorse,theCourtaffirmed
thatthespeechrightsofpublicschoolstudentsarenotasextensiveasthoseadultsnormallyenjoy,and
thatthehighlyprotectivestandardsetbyTinkerwouldnotalwaysbeapplied.
4. BethelSchoolDistrictNo.403v.Fraser(1986)(Speechatahighschoolassemblyfeatured)
BackgroundFacts:
Ataschoolassemblyofapproximately600highschoolstudents,MatthewFrasermadeaspeech
nominatingafellowstudentforelectiveoffice.Inhisspeech,Fraserusedwhatsomeobserversbelieved
wasagraphicsexualmetaphortopromotethecandidacyofhisfriend.Aspartofitsdisciplinarycode,
BethelHighSchoolenforcedaruleprohibitingconductthat"substantiallyinterfereswiththeeducational
process...includingtheuseofobscene,profanelanguageorgestures."Fraserwassuspendedfrom
schoolfortwodays.
Question:DoestheFirstAmendmentpreventaschooldistrictfromdiscipliningahighschoolstudentfor
givingalewdspeechatahighschoolassembly?
Conclusion:No.TheCourtfoundthatitwasappropriatefortheschooltoprohibittheuseofvulgarand
offensivelanguage.ChiefJusticeWarrenBurgerdistinguishedbetweenpoliticalspeechthattheCourt
previouslyhadprotectedinTinkerv.DesMoinesIndependentCommunitySchoolDistrict(1969)andthe
supposedsexualcontentofFraser'smessageattheassembly.BurgerconcludedthattheFirst
Amendmentdidnotprohibitschoolsfromprohibitingvulgarandlewdspeechsincesuchdiscoursewas
inconsistentwiththe"fundamentalvaluesofpublicschooleducation."
5. Leev.Weisman(1992)(Highschoolcommencementcasefeatured)
BackgroundFacts:Inkeepingwiththepracticeofseveralotherpublicmiddleandhighschoolprincipals
inProvidence,R.I.,RobertE.Lee,amiddleschoolprincipal,invitedarabbitospeakathisschool's
graduationceremony.DanielWeisman'sdaughter,Deborah,wasamongthegraduates.Hopingtostop
therabbifromspeakingathisdaughter'sgraduation,Weismansoughtatemporaryrestrainingorderin
DistrictCourtbutwasdenied.Aftertheceremony,whereprayerswererecited,Weismanfiledfora
permanentinjunctionbarringLeeandotherProvidencepublicschoolofficialsfrominvitingclergyto
deliverinvocationsandbenedictionsattheirschools'ceremonies.WhentheCourtofAppealsaffirmeda
DistrictCourtrulingagainsttheschools,LeeappealedtotheSupremeCourtandwasgrantedcertiorari.
Question:Doestheinclusionofclergywhoofferprayersatofficialpublicschoolceremoniesviolatethe
EstablishmentClauseoftheFirstAmendment?
Conclusion:Yes.Ina5to4decision,theCourtheldthatgovernmentinvolvementinthiscasecreates"a
statesponsoredandstatedirectedreligiousexerciseinapublicschool."Suchconductconflictswith
settledrulesproscribingprayerforstudents.Theschool'srulecreatessubtleandindirectcoercion
(studentsmuststandrespectfullyandsilently),forcingstudentstoactinwaysthatestablishastate
religion.ThecornerstoneprincipleoftheEstablishmentClauseisthatgovernmentmaynotcompose
officialprayerstoreciteaspartofareligiousprogramcarriedonbygovernment.
Sourceofinformation:www.oyez.org
Page2of2
23
Student Materials
Video Follow-Up: Ten Questions
Jigsaw Activity: A Collection of Supreme Court Cases: Free Speech
24
VideoFollowUp
TenQuestions
Video Follow-Up:
Ten Questions
Video:AConversationontheConstitution:FreedomofSpeech
SunnylandsSeminars,2009
1. Whydoyouthinktheframersvaluedfreedomofspeech?
2. Whatconstitutesspeech?
3. Whyareallformsofexpressionimportantinademocracy?
4. Whydoyouthinktherearelimitstofreespeech?Inyouropinion,shouldtherebe?Why?
5. Whydoyouthinkitssohardtodefinewhatspeechisprotectedandwhatisnot?
6. Citethefundamentalprinciplethatisthestartingpointforalljudicialdecisionsrelatedtofree
speech.
7. Listfactorsbroughtupbythejusticesinthevideoasonesthatcouldmatterwhenresolvingfree
speechdisputes.
8. TheConstitutiondoesnotdefinefreespeech.WhatdidJusticeBreyermeanwhenhesaid,So,
thatsleftuptothepeopletoworkout?Explainhowpeoplehelpdefinefreedomofspeechwhen
decisionsaremadebythecourt.
9. Whatdidyoulearnfromthejusticesabouttheprocessfordecidingfreespeechmatters?
10. AccordingtoJusticeBreyer,whatistheworstthingyoucandobywayofabridgment?
25
ACollectionofU.S.SupremeCourtCases:FreedomofSpeech
JigsawActivity
Question
WereSchenck's
actions(words,
expression)protected
bythefreespeech
clauseoftheFirst
Amendment?
Did theamendments
totheEspionageAct
ortheapplicationof
thoseamendmentsin
thiscaseviolatethe
freespeechclauseof
theFirstAmendment?
Was theNewYorklaw
punishingthe
advocacyof
overthrowingthe
governmentan
unconstitutional
violationofthefree
speechclauseofthe
FirstAmendment?
Did theCriminal
SyndicalismAct
violatetheFirstor
Fourteenth
Amendments?
Thedefendantswereconvictedonthebasisoftwoleafletstheyprintedand
threwfromwindowsofabuilding.Oneleafletsigned"revolutionists"denounced
thesendingofAmericantroopstoRussia.Thesecondleaflet,writteninYiddish,
denouncedthewarandU.S.effortstoimpedetheRussianRevolution.The
defendantswerechargedandconvictedforincitingresistancetothewareffort
andforurgingcurtailmentofproductionofessentialwarmaterial.Theywere
sentencedto20yearsinprison.
BenjaminGitlow,asocialist,wasarrestedfordistributingcopiesofa"leftwing
manifesto"thatcalledfortheestablishmentofsocialismthroughstrikesandclass
actionofanyform.Gitlowwasconvictedunderastatecriminalanarchylaw,
whichpunishedadvocatingtheoverthrowofthegovernmentbyforce.Athistrial,
Gitlowarguedthatsincetherewasnoresultingactionflowingfromthe
manifesto'spublication,thestatutepenalizedutteranceswithoutpropensityto
incitementofconcreteaction.TheNewYorkcourtshaddecidedthatanyonewho
advocatedthedoctrineofviolentrevolutionviolatedthelaw.
CharlotteAnitaWhitney,amemberoftheCommunistLaborPartyofCalifornia,
wasprosecutedunderthatstate'sCriminalSyndicalismAct.TheActprohibited
advocating,teaching,oraidingthecommissionofacrime,including"terrorismas
ameansofaccomplishingachangeinindustrialownership...oreffectingany
politicalchange."
2.
3.
4.
1.
BackgroundFacts
DuringWorldWarI,CharlesSchenckmailedcircularstodraftees.Thecirculars
suggestedthatthedraftwasamonstrouswrongmotivatedbythecapitalist
system.Thecircularsurged"Donotsubmittointimidation"butadvisedonly
peacefulactionsuchaspetitioningtorepealtheConscriptionAct.Schenckwas
chargedwithconspiracytoviolatetheEspionageActbyattemptingtocause
insubordinationinthemilitaryandtoobstructrecruitment.
http://www.oyez.org/cas
es/1901
1939/1925/1925_3
Whitneyv.
California,274U.S.
357(1927)
es/1901
1939/1922/1922_19
Gitlowv.NewYork,
268U.S.652(1925)
es/1901
1939/1919/1919_316
Abramsv.United
States,250U.S.616
(1919)
es/1901
1939/1918/1918_437
Case
Schenckv.United
States,249U.S.47
(1919)
Decision
Page1of18
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Instructions:ReviewtheassignedcasesatthelinksprovidedtoidentifytheDecision(answertotheQuestion)andtheFreeSpeechPrincipleitprovides.
AlsousetheinformationprovidedintheTimelineforFreeSpeechbyJusticeLearningathttp://www.justicelearning.org/ViewIssue.aspx?IssueID=4.
26
9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
27
Did theapplicationof
thestatuteviolate
Chaplinsky'sfreedom
ofspeechprotected
bytheFirst
Amendment?
LillianandWilliamGobitiswereexpelledfromthepublicschoolsofMinersville,
Pennsylvania,forrefusingtosalutetheflagaspartofadailyschoolexercise.The
GobitischildrenwereJehovah'sWitnesses;theybelievedthatsuchagestureof
respectfortheflagwasforbiddenbybiblicalcommands.
WalterChaplinsky,aJehovah'sWitness,calledacitymarshala"Goddamned
racketeer"and"adamnedfascist"inapublicplace.Hewasarrestedand
convictedunderastatelawforviolatingabreachofthepeace.
Question
Did aCalifornia
statutethatmakesthe
displayofaredflagas
astatementof
oppositionto
organized
governmentviolate
theFirst&Fourteenth
Amendments?
Did theAlabamalaw
violateThornhill's
righttofree
expressionunderthe
FirstAmendment?
Did thesolicitation
statuteorthe"breach
ofthepeace"
ordinanceviolatethe
Cantwells'First
Amendmentfree
speechorfree
exerciserights?
Did themandatory
flagsaluteinfringe
uponliberties
protectedbytheFirst
andFourteenth
Amendments?
JesseCantwellandhissonwereJehovah'sWitnesses;theywereproselytizinga
predominantlyCatholicneighborhoodinConnecticut.TheCantwellsdistributed
religiousmaterialsbytravelingdoortodoorandbyapproachingpeopleonthe
street.AftervoluntarilyhearinganantiRomanCatholicmessageontheCantwells'
portablephonograph,twopedestriansreactedangrily.TheCantwellswere
subsequentlyarrestedforviolatingalocalordinancerequiringapermitfor
solicitationandforincitingabreachofthepeace.
ByronThornhilljoinedapicketlinethatwasprotestingagainsthisformer
employer.Section3448ofAlabamastatelawmadeitanoffensetopicket.
Pursuanttothelaw,Thornhillwasarrestedandfined$100.Thornhill,aunion
president,wastheonlypicketertobearrestedandtriedunderthelaw.
BackgroundFacts
A19yearoldmemberoftheYoungCommunistLeaguewasconvictedfor
displayingaredflagas"anemblemofoppositiontotheUnitedStates
government."
es/1940
1949/1941/1941_255
Chaplinskyv.State
ofNewHampshire,
315U.S.568(1942)
es/1901
1939/1939/1939_690
MinersvilleSchool
Districtv.Gobitis,
310U.S.586(1940)
es/1901
1939/1939/1939_632
Cantwellv.Stateof
Connecticut,310
U.S.296(1940)
es/1901
1939/1939/1939_514
Thornhillv.
Alabama,310U.S.
88(1940)
es/1901
1939/1930/1930_584
Case
Strombergv.People
OfStateOf
California,283U.S.
359(1931)
JigsawActivity
Decision
Page2of18
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Did theChicago
ordinanceviolate
Terminiello'srightof
freeexpression
guaranteedbythe
FirstAmendment?
Did theSmithAct's
restrictionsonspeech
violatetheFirst
Amendment?
DidBeauharnais'
convictionunderthe
Illinoisstatuteviolate
hisconstitutionalright
tofreespeechunder
theFirstand
Fourteenth
Amendments?
FatherArthurTerminiello,inanauditoriuminChicago,deliveredavitriolicspeech
inwhichhecriticizedvariouspoliticalandracialgroupsandviciouslycondemned
theprotestingcrowdthathadgatheredoutsidetheauditorium.Policemen
assignedtotheeventwereunabletopreventseveraldisturbancesbythe"angry
andturbulent"crowd.ThepolicearrestedTerminiellofor"breachofthepeace."
Hewasthentriedandconvictedforhiscentralroleinincitingariot.
In1948,theleadersoftheCommunistPartyofAmericawerearrestedand
chargedwithviolatingprovisionsoftheSmithAct.TheActmadeitunlawfulto
knowinglyconspiretoteachandadvocatetheoverthrowordestructionofthe
U.S.government.Partyleaderswerefoundguiltyandlowercourtsupheldthe
conviction.
JosephBeauharnais,presidentofWhiteCircleLeague,Inc.,wasarrestedon
January7,1950,fordistributingleafletsonChicagostreetcorners.Theleaflets
calledinpartuponthemayorandaldermenofChicago"tohaltthefurther
encroachment,harassmentandinvasionofwhitepeoplebytheNegro."
BeauharnaiswaschargedwithviolatinganIllinoislawmakingitillegalto
distributeanypublicationthat"exposesthecitizensofanyrace,color,creedor
religiontocontempt,derision,orobloquy."Ajuryfoundhimguilty,andhewas
fined$200.TheIllinoisSupremeCourtaffirmedhisconviction.
11.
12
13.
10.
Question
Did the compulsory
flagsaluteforpublic
schoolchildrenviolate
theFirstAmendment?
es/1950
1959/1951/1951_118
Beauharnaisv.
Illinois,343U.S.250
(1952)
es/1950
1959/1950/1950_336
Dennisv.United
States,341U.S.494
(1951)
es/1940
1949/1948/1948_272
Terminiellov.
Chicago,337U.S.1
(1949)
es/1940
1949/1942/1942_591
Case
WestVirginiaState
BoardofEd.v.
Barnette,319U.S.
624(1943)
JigsawActivity
BackgroundFacts
TheWestVirginiaBoardofEducationrequiredthattheflagsalutebepartofthe
programofactivitiesinallpublicschools.Allteachersandpupilswererequiredto
honortheflag;refusaltosalutewastreatedas"insubordination"andwas
punishablebyexpulsionandchargesofdelinquency.
28
Decision
Page3of18
FreeSpeechPrinciple
16.
15.
14.
29
Did Alabama'slibel
law,bynotrequiring
Sullivantoprovethat
anadvertisement
personallyharmed
himanddismissing
thesameasuntruthful
duetofactualerrors,
unconstitutionally
infringeontheFirst
Amendment's
freedomofspeech
andfreedomofpress
protections?
DecidedtogetherwithAbernathyv.Sullivan,thiscaseconcernsafullpageadin
theNewYorkTimesthatallegedthatthearrestoftheRev.MartinLutherKingJr.
forperjuryinAlabamawaspartofacampaigntodestroyKing'seffortsto
integratepublicfacilitiesandencourageblackstovote.L.B.Sullivan,the
Montgomerycitycommissioner,filedalibelactionagainstthenewspaperand
fourblackministerswhowerelistedasendorsersofthead,claimingthatthe
allegationsagainsttheMontgomerypolicedefamedhimpersonally.Under
Alabamalaw,Sullivandidnothavetoprovethathehadbeenharmed;anda
defenseclaimingthattheadwastruthfulwasunavailablesincetheadcontained
factualerrors.Sullivanwona$500,000judgment.
FiveAfricanAmericansstagedapeacefulsitinataLouisianarestaurantthat
cateredtobothwhiteandblackpatrons.Whenthedemonstratorssatatthe
counterswhereonlywhitepersonswerecustomarilyserved,theywereaskedto
leavebypoliceofficers.Whentheyrefused,theywerearrestedchargedwith
disturbingthepeaceandconvicted.
Question
Dideitherthefederal
orCalifornia's
obscenityrestrictions,
prohibitingthesaleor
transferofobscene
materialsthroughthe
mail,impingeupon
thefreedomof
expressionas
guaranteedbythe
FirstAmendment?
Werethefreespeech
rightsofthe
demonstrators
denied?
BackgroundFacts
SamuelRothoperatedabooksellingbusinessinNewYorkandwasconvictedof
mailingobscenecircularsandanobscenebookinviolationofafederalobscenity
statute.Roth'scasewascombinedwithAlbertsv.California,inwhichaCalifornia
obscenitylawwaschallengedbyAlbertsafterhissimilarconvictionforselling
lewdandobscenebooksinadditiontocomposingandpublishingobscene
advertisementsforhisproducts.
es/1960
1969/1963/1963_39
NewYorkTimesv.
Sullivan,376U.S.
254(1964)
es/1960
1969/1961/1961_26
Garnerv.Louisiana,
368U.S.157(1961)
es/1950
1959/1956/1956_582
Case
Rothv.United
States,354U.S.476
(1957)
JigsawActivity
Decision
Page4of18
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Isthelawan
unconstitutional
infringementof
O'Brien'sfreedomof
speech?
Was theteachers
righttofreespeech
violated?
Did aprohibition
againstthewearingof
armbandsinpublic
school,asaformof
symbolicprotest,
violatetheFirst
Amendment's
freedomofspeech
protections?
DavidO'BrienburnedhisdraftcardataBostoncourthouse.Hesaidhewas
expressinghisoppositiontowar.Hewasconvictedunderafederallawthatmade
thedestructionormutilationofdraftcardsacrime.
Ateacherwasfiredforwritingalettertothenewspapercriticizinghowmoney
wasdividedbetweenathleticsandacademics.
JohnTinker,15yearsold,hissisterMaryBethTinker,13yearsold,and
ChristopherEckhardt,16yearsold,decidedalongwiththeirparentstoprotestthe
VietnamWarbywearingblackarmbandstotheirDesMoinesschoolsduringthe
Christmasholidayseason.Uponlearningoftheirintentions,andfearingthatthe
armbandswouldprovokedisturbances,theprincipalsoftheDesMoinesschool
districtresolvedthatallstudentswearingarmbandsbeaskedtoremovethemor
facesuspension.WhentheTinkersiblingsandChristopherworetheirarmbands
toschool,theywereaskedtoremovethem.Whentheyrefused,theywere
suspendeduntilafterNewYear'sDay.
18.
19.
20.
17.
Question
Isapublication,
containing
misrepresentations
aboutthesubjectof
itscoverage,
protectedunderthe
FirstAmendment's
freedomofspeech
guarantees?
es/1960
1969/1968/1968_21
Tinkerv.DesMoines
Ind.Comm.School
Dist.,393U.S.503
(1969)
es/1960
1969/1967/1967_510
Pickeringv.Boardof
Education,391U.S.
563(1968)
es/1960
1969/1967/1967_232
UnitedStatesv.
O'Brien,391U.S.
367(1968)
es/1960
1969/1965/1965_22
Case
TimeInc.v.Hill,385
U.S.374(1967)
JigsawActivity
BackgroundFacts
In1952,threeescapedconvictstookJamesHill,hiswife,andtheirfivechildren
hostageintheirWhitemarsh,Pennsylvania,home.Afternineteenhours,the
familywasreleasedunharmed.Theconvictswerelaterapprehendedinaviolent
clashwithpoliceduringwhichtwoofthemwerekilled.In1953,JosephHays
publishedanovelbasedontheHillfamily'sordeal.Whenthenovelwas
subsequentlymadeintoaplay,LifeMagazine("Life")printedanarticleaboutthe
playthatmirroredmanyofitsinaccuraciesconcerningtheHillfamily'sexperience.
Allegingthatitdeliberatelymisrepresentedhisstory,Hillsoughtdamagesagainst
Life.Onappealfromanadverseruling,theAppellateDivisionoftheNewYork
SupremeCourtremandedforanewtrialwhereareducedadverserulingwas
imposedonLife.FollowinganunsuccessfulappealintheNewYorkCourtof
Appeals,theSupremeCourtgrantedLife'sowner,TimeInc.("Time")certiorari.
30
Decision
Page5of18
FreeSpeechPrinciple
24.
23.
22.
21.
31
Did Ohio'scriminal
syndicalismlaw,
prohibitingpublic
speechthatadvocates
variousillegal
activities,violate
Brandenburg'srightto
freespeechas
protectedbytheFirst
andFourteenth
Amendments?
Did California's
statute,prohibiting
thedisplayof
offensivemessages
suchasCohens,
violatefreedomof
expressionas
protectedbytheFirst
Amendment?
Bypreventingthe
distributionof
handbillsinthemall,
didtheownerofthe
malldenythefree
speechrightsofthose
distributingthe
handbills?
ClarenceBrandenburg,aleaderintheKuKluxKlan,madeaspeechataKlanrally
andwaslaterconvictedunderanOhiocriminalsyndicalismlaw.Thelawmade
illegaladvocating"crime,sabotage,violence,orunlawfulmethodsofterrorismas
ameansofaccomplishingindustrialorpoliticalreform,"aswellasassembling
"withanysociety,group,orassemblageofpersonsformedtoteachoradvocate
thedoctrinesofcriminalsyndicalism."
Individualssoughttodistributehandbillsintheinteriormallareaofalarge
privatelyownedshoppingcenter.Theownerofthemallhadastrictnohandbill
rule.Securityguardsaskedthemtostop,underthreatofarrest,andsuggested
theycouldresumetheiractivitiesonthepublicstreetsandsidewalksadjacentto
butoutsidethecenter,whichtheydid.
A19yearolddepartmentstoreworkerexpressedhisoppositiontotheVietnam
Warbywearingajacketemblazonedwithanantiwarmessagethatincludeda
fourletterexpletive.Theyoungman,PaulCohen,waschargedunderaCalifornia
statutethatprohibits"maliciouslyandwillfullydisturb[ing]thepeaceandquietof
anyneighborhoodorperson[by]offensiveconduct."Cohenwasfoundguiltyand
sentencedto30daysinjail
Question
Did theGeorgia
statuteinfringeupon
thefreedomof
expressionprotected
bytheFirst
Amendment?
BackgroundFacts
Lawenforcementofficers,undertheauthorityofawarrant,searchedRobert
Stanley'shomepursuanttoaninvestigationofhisallegedbookmakingactivities.
Duringthesearch,theofficersfoundthreereelsofeightmillimeterfilm.The
officersviewedthefilms,concludedtheywereobscene,andseizedthem.Stanley
wasthentriedandconvictedunderaGeorgialawprohibitingthepossessionof
obscenematerials.
es/1970
1979/1971/1971_71_492
LloydCorp.v.
Tanner,407U.S.
551(1972)
http://law.jrank.org/page
s/12820/Cohenv
California.html
Cohenv.California,
403U.S.15(1971)
http://www.oyez.org/
cases/1960
1969/1968/1968_492
Brandenburgv.
Ohio,395U.S.444
(1969)
es/1960
1969/1968/1968_293
Case
Stanleyv.Georgia,
394U.S.557(1969)
JigsawActivity
Decision
Page6of18
FreeSpeechPrinciple
27.
26.
25.
32
Question
DidtheGeorgia
injunctionagainstthe
filmsviolatetheFirst
Amendment's
guaranteeoffreedom
ofexpression?
Are thesaleand
distributionof
obscenematerialsby
mailprotectedunder
theFirstAmendment's
freedomofspeech
guarantee?
ElmerGertzwasanattorneyhiredbyafamilytosueapoliceofficerwhohad
DoestheFirst
killedthefamily'sson.InamagazinecalledAmericanOpinion,theJohnBirch
Amendmentallowa
SocietyaccusedGertzofbeinga"Leninist"anda"Communistfronter"becausehe newspaperor
chosetorepresentclientswhoweresuingalawenforcementofficer.Gertzlost
broadcastertoassert
hislibelsuitbecausealowercourtfoundthatthemagazinehadnotviolatedthe
defamatory
actualmalicetestforlibelthattheSupremeCourthadestablishedinNewYork
falsehoodsaboutan
Timesv.Sullivan(1964).
individualwhois
neitherapublic
officialnorapublic
figure?
MarvinMiller,afterconductingamassmailingcampaigntoadvertisethesaleof
"adult"material,wasconvictedofviolatingaCaliforniastatuteprohibitingthe
distributionofobscenematerial.SomeunwillingrecipientsofMiller'sbrochures
complainedtothepolice,initiatingthelegalproceedings.
BackgroundFacts
StateofficialsinGeorgiasoughttoenjointheshowingofallegedlyobscenefilms
attheParisAdultTheatre.TheTheatreclearlywarnedpotentialviewersofthe
sexualnatureofthefilmsandrequiredthatpatronsbeatleast21yearsofage.
TheGeorgiaSupremeCourtheldthatthefilmswere"hardcore"pornography
unprotectedbytheConstitution.
es/1970
1979/1973/1973_72_617
Gertzv.Robert
WelchInc.,418U.S.
323(1974)
es/1970
1979/1971/1971_70_73
Millerv.California,
413U.S.15(1973)
es/1970
1979/1972/1972_71_105
1
Case
ParisAdultTheatre
v.Slaton,413U.S.
49(1973)
JigsawActivity
Decision
Page7of18
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Whenstrikingmembersofaunionpicketedinfrontoftheiremployer'sleased
storelocatedinaprivateshoppingcenter,theshoppingcenter'sgeneralmanager
threatenedthemwitharrestforcriminaltrespassiftheydidnotdepart,andthey
left.
ANewHampshirelawrequiredallnoncommercialvehiclestobearlicenseplates
containingthestatemotto"LiveFreeorDie."GeorgeMaynard,aJehovah's
Witness,foundthemottotobecontrarytohisreligiousandpoliticalbeliefsand
cutthewords"orDie"offhisplate.Maynardwasconvictedofviolatingthestate
lawandwassubsequentlyfinedandgivenajailsentence.
30.
31.
Actingonbehalfofprescriptiondrugconsumers,theVirginiaCitizensConsumer
CouncilchallengedaVirginiastatutethatdeclareditunprofessionalconductfor
licensedpharmaciststoadvertisetheirprescriptiondrugprices.Onappealfrom
anadverserulingbyathreejudgeDistrictCourtpanel,theSupremeCourt
grantedtheVirginiaStateBoardofPharmacyreview.
BackgroundFacts
InthewakeoftheWatergateaffair,Congressattemptedtoferretoutcorruption
inpoliticalcampaignsbyrestrictingfinancialcontributionstocandidates.Among
otherthings,thelawsetlimitsontheamountofmoneyanindividualcould
contributetoasinglecampaignanditrequiredreportingofcontributionsabovea
certainthresholdamount.TheFederalElectionCommissionwascreatedto
enforcethestatute.
Did theNew
Hampshirelaw
unconstitutionally
interferewiththe
freedomofspeech
guaranteedbythe
FirstAmendment?
Question
Did thelimitsplaced
onelectoral
expendituresbythe
FederalElection
CampaignActof1971,
andrelatedprovisions
oftheInternal
RevenueCodeof1954
violatetheFirst
Amendment's
freedomofspeech
andassociation
clauses?
Isastatutorybanon
advertising
prescriptiondrug
pricesbylicensed
pharmacistsa
violationof
"commercialspeech"
undertheFirst
Amendment?
Werethepicketers
deniedtheirFirst
Amendmentrights?
es/1970
1979/1976/1976_75_145
3
Wooleyv.Maynard,
430U.S.705(1977)
es/1970
1979/1975/1975_74_773
Hudgensv.NLRB,
424U.S.507(1976)
es/1970
1979/1975/1975_74_895
VirginiaPharmacy
Bd.v.Virginia
ConsumerCouncil,
425U.S.748(1976)
es/1970
1979/1975/1975_75_436
Case
Buckleyv.Valeo,
424U.S.1(1976)
JigsawActivity
29.
28.
33
Decision
Page8of18
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Did thePSC'sbanon
advertisingviolatethe
freedomofspeech
protectedbytheFirst
andFourteenth
Amendments?
Did PruneYard's
regulationsviolatethe
students'freespeech
rights?
Didtheclosureofthe
trialtothepressand
publicviolatetheFirst
Amendmentorthe
SixthAmendment?
ThePublicServiceCommissionofNewYork(PSC),intheinterestofconserving
energy,enactedaregulationthatprohibitedelectricutilitiesfrompromoting
electricityuse.ThePSC'sregulationdistinguishedpromotionaladvertisingfrom
informationaladvertising,whichwaspermitted.CentralHudsonGasandElectric
challengedtheregulationinaNewYorkStateSupremeCourt,whichupheldthe
regulation.TheAppellateDivisionoftheNewYorkStateSupremeCourtaffirmed
thedecision,asdidtheNewYorkCourtofAppeals.
HighschoolstudentsseekingsupportfortheiroppositiontoaUnitedNations
resolutionagainstZionismsetupatableinPruneYardtodistributeliteratureand
solicitsignaturesforapetition.Asecurityguardtoldthemtoleavebecausetheir
actionsviolatedtheshoppingcenter'sregulationsagainst"publiclyexpressive"
activities.
AfteraseriesofmistrialsinamurdercaseinthestateofVirginia,atrialjudge
closedthetrialtothepublicandthemedia.Defensecounselbroughttheclosure
motion;theprosecutiondidnotobject.TworeportersofRichmondNewspapers,
Inc.challengedthejudge'saction.
33.
34.
35.
32.
Question
DoestheFirst
Amendmentdeny
governmentany
powertorestrictthe
publicbroadcastof
indecentlanguage
underany
circumstances?
es/1970
1979/1979/1979_79_243
Richmond
NewspapersInc.v.
Virginia,448U.S.
555(1980)
es/1970
1979/1979/1979_79_289
PruneYardShopping
Centerv.Robins,
447U.S.74(1980)
es/1970
1979/1979/1979_79_565
CentralHudsonGas
&ElectricCorp.v.
PublicService
CommissionofNew
York,447U.S.557
(1980)
s/12652/Federal
Communications
CommissionvPacifica
Foundation.html
Case
FCCv.Pacifica
Foundation,438
U.S.726(1978)
JigsawActivity
BackgroundFacts
Duringamidafternoonweeklybroadcast,aNewYorkradiostationairedGeorge
Carlin'smonologue"FilthyWords."Carlinspokeofthewordsthatcouldnotbe
saidonthepublicairwaves.Thestationwarnedlistenersthatthemonologue
included"sensitivelanguagewhichmightberegardedasoffensivetosome."The
FCCreceivedacomplaintfromamanwhostatedthathehadheardthebroadcast
whiledrivingwithhisyoungson.
34
Decision
Page9of18
FreeSpeechPrinciple
39.
38.
37.
36.
35
In1982,theNationalParkServiceissuedarenewablepermittotheCommunity
forCreativeNonViolencetoconductademonstrationinLafayetteParkandthe
MallinWashington,D.C.TheC.C.N.V.demonstrationwasintendedtorepresent
theplightofthehomeless,andthedemonstratorswishedtosleepintentcities
setupinthepark.Citinganticampingregulations,theParkServicedeniedthe
request.
Did theNationalPark
Serviceregulations
violatetheFirst
Amendmentby
curtailingsymbolic
speech?
es/1980
1989/1983/1983_82_199
8
Clarkv.C.C.N.V.,
468U.S.288(1984)
es/1980
1989/1982/1982_81_125
1
Connickv.Myers,
461U.S.138(1983)
es/1980
1989/1981/1981_80_204
3
BoardOfEducation
v.Pico,457U.S.853
(1982)
es/1980
1989/1981/1981_81_55
Question
Case
Did thelawviolatethe NewYork v.Ferber,
FirstandFourteenth
458U.S.747(1982)
Amendments?
Did theBoardof
Education'sdecision
tobancertainbooks
fromitsjuniorhigh
andhighschool
libraries,basedon
theircontent,violate
theFirstAmendment's
freedomofspeech
protections?
AnassistantdistrictattorneyinNewOrleansstronglyopposedinternaloffice
WeretheFirst
proceduresandexpressedherviewtoseveralofhersupervisors.Shortly
Amendmentrights
thereafter,shepreparedanddistributedaquestionnairetootherassistantdistrict deniedtheassistant
attorneysintheofficeconcerningofficetransferpolicy,officemorale,theneed
districtattorneywhen
foragrievancecommittee,thelevelofconfidenceinsupervisors,andwhether
shewasfiredunder
employeesfeltpressuredtoworkinpoliticalcampaigns.Shewasterminatedfor
thesecircumstances?
refusaltoacceptthetransfer,andwastoldherthatherdistributionofthe
questionnairewasconsideredanactofinsubordination.
TheIslandTreesUnionFreeSchoolDistrict'sBoardofEducation(the"Board"),
actingcontrarytotherecommendationsofacommitteeofparentsandschool
staff,orderedthatcertainbooksberemovedfromitsdistrict'sjuniorhighand
highschoollibraries.Insupportofitsactions,theBoardsaidsuchbookswere:
"antiAmerican,antiChristian,antiSemitic,andjustplainfilthy."Actingthrough
hisfriendFrancisPico,andonbehalfofseveralotherstudents,StevenPico
broughtsuitinfederaldistrictcourtchallengingtheBoard'sdecisiontoremove
thebooks.TheBoardwon;theU.S.CourtofAppealsfortheSecondCircuit
reversed.TheBoardpetitionedtheU.S.SupremeCourt,whichgrantedcertiorari.
BackgroundFacts
ANewYorkchildpornographylawprohibitedpersonsfromknowinglypromoting
sexualperformancesbychildrenundertheageofsixteenbydistributingmaterial
thatdepictssuchperformances.
JigsawActivity
Decision
Page10of18
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Isthedesecrationof
anAmericanflag,by
burningorotherwise,
aformofspeechthat
isprotectedunderthe
FirstAmendment?
Did theActviolate
freedomofexpression
protectedbytheFirst
Amendment?
In1984,infrontoftheDallasCityHall,GregoryLeeJohnsonburnedanAmerican
flagasameansofprotestagainstReaganadministrationpolicies.Johnsonwas
triedandconvictedunderaTexaslawoutlawingflagdesecration.Hewas
sentencedtooneyearinjailandassesseda$2,000fine.AftertheTexasCourtof
CriminalAppealsreversedtheconviction,thecasewenttotheSupremeCourt.
In1989,CongresspassedtheFlagProtectionAct, whichmadeitacrimetodestroy
anAmericanflagoranylikenessofanAmericanflagthatmaybe"commonly
displayed."Thelawdid,however,allowproperdisposalofawornorsoiledflag.
SeveralprosecutionsresultedfromtheAct.Eichmansetaflagablazeonthesteps
oftheU.S.Capitolwhileprotestingthegovernment'sdomesticandforeignpolicy.
Anotherprosecution(UnitedStatesv.Haggerty)resultedfromaflagburningin
SeattleprotestingthepassageoftheFlagProtectionAct.Thecases(Eichman's
andHaggerty's)werearguedtogether.
43.
http://oyez.org/cases/19
80
1989/1985/1985_84_166
7
Case
BethelSchool
DistrictNo.403v.
Fraser,478U.S.675
(1986)
es/1980
1989/1989/1989_89_143
3
UnitedStatesv.
Eichman,496U.S.
310(1990)
es/1980
1989/1988/1988_88_155
Texasv.Johnson,
491U.S.397(1989)
80
1989/1987/1987_86_836
Didtheprincipal's
HazelwoodSchool
deletionofthearticles Districtv.
violatethestudents'
Kuhlmeier,484U.S.
rightsundertheFirst
260(1988)
Amendment?
Question
DoestheFirst
Amendmentpreventa
schooldistrictfrom
discipliningahigh
schoolstudentfor
givingalewdspeech
atahighschool
assembly?
42.
TheSpectrum,theschoolsponsorednewspaperofHazelwoodEastHighSchool,
waswrittenandeditedbystudents.InMay1983,RobertE.Reynolds,theschool
principal,receivedthepageproofsfortheMay13issue.Reynoldsfoundtwoof
thearticlesintheissuetobeinappropriate,andorderedthatthepagesonwhich
thearticlesappearedbewithheldfrompublication.CathyKuhlmeierandtwo
otherformerHazelwoodEaststudentsbroughtthecasetocourt.
BackgroundFacts
Ataschoolassemblyofapproximately600highschoolstudents,MatthewFraser
madeaspeechnominatingafellowstudentforelectiveoffice.Inhisspeech,
Fraserusedwhatsomeobserversbelievedwasagraphicsexualmetaphorto
promotethecandidacyofhisfriend.Aspartofitsdisciplinarycode,BethelHigh
Schoolenforcedaruleprohibitingconductthat"substantiallyinterfereswiththe
educationalprocess...includingtheuseofobscene,profanelanguageor
gestures."Fraserwassuspendedfromschoolfortwodays.
JigsawActivity
41.
40.
36
Decision
Page11of18
FreeSpeechPrinciple
47.
46.
45.
44.
37
Did theSonofSam
lawviolatethefree
speechclauseofthe
FirstAmendment?
Istheordinanceoverly
broadand
impermissibly
contentbasedin
violationoftheFirst
Amendmentfree
speechclause?
Didthedistrictviolate
theFirstAmendment's
freedomofspeech
clausewhenitdenied
Lamb'sChapeltheuse
ofschoolpremisesto
showreligious
orientedfilms?
Tokeepcriminalsfromprofitingfromcrimesbysellingtheirstories,NewYork
State's1977"SonofSam"laworderedthatproceedsfromsuchdealsbeturned
overtotheNewYorkStateCrimeVictimsBoard.TheBoardwastodepositthe
moneyintoescrowaccountsthatvictimscouldlaterclaimthroughcivilsuits.In
1987,theBoardorderedHenryHill,aformergangsterwhosoldhisstorytoSimon
&Schuster,toturnoverhispaymentsfromabookdeal.
Severalteenagersallegedlyburnedacrudelyfashionedcrossonablackfamily's
lawn.Thepolicechargedoneoftheteensunderalocalbiasmotivatedcriminal
ordinancethatprohibitsthedisplayofasymbolthat"arousesanger,alarmor
resentmentinothersonthebasisofrace,color,creed,religionorgender."The
trialcourtdismissedthischarge.ThestateSupremeCourtreversed.R.A.V.
appealedtotheU.S.SupremeCourt.
ANewYorklawauthorizedschoolstoregulatetheafterhouruseofschool
propertyandfacilities.TheCenterMorichesSchoolDistrict,actingunderthe
statute,prohibitedtheuseofitspropertybyanyreligiousgroup.TheDistrict
refusedrepeatedrequestsbyLamb'sChapeltousetheschool'sfacilitiesforan
afterhoursreligiousorientedfilmseriesonfamilyvaluesandchildrearing.The
Chapelbroughtsuitagainsttheschooldistrictinfederalcourt.
Question
DoestheFirst
Amendmentgivethe
NewYorkerarightto
publishfabricated
quotationsattributed
toapublicfigure?
BackgroundFacts
AfterJeffreyMassonwasfiredfromhispositionattheSigmundFreudArchives,
JanetMalcolminterviewedhimforanarticleintheNewYorkermagazine.
MalcolmsarticleincludedmanylongdirectquotationsfromMasson.Thearticle
presentedMassonasextremelyarrogantandcondescending;atonepoint,hewas
quotedascallinghimself"thegreatestanalystwhoeverlived."However,Malcolm
fabricatedmanyofthemoredistastefulquotations.Massonsuedforlibel.The
DistrictCourtdismissedthecaseonFirstAmendmentfreespeechgrounds
becauseMassonwasapublicfigure.
es/1990
1999/1992/1992_91_202
4
Lamb'sChapelv.
CenterMoriches
SchoolDistrict,508
U.S.384(1993)
s/12681/RVvCitySt
Paul.html
R.A.V.v.St.Paul,
505U.S.377(1992)
es/1990
1999/1991/1991_90_105
9
Simon&Schusterv.
NYCrimeVictims
Board,502U.S.105
(1991)
es/1990
1999/1990/1990_89_179
9
Case
Massonv.New
YorkerMagazine,
Inc.,501U.S.496
(1991)
JigsawActivity
Decision
Page12of18
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Did certainprovisions
ofthe1996
Communications
DecencyActviolate
theFirstandFifth
Amendmentsbybeing
overlybroadand
vagueintheir
definitionsofthe
typesofInternet
communicationsthat
theycriminalized?
Were thestatutory
fundingguidelines
requiringtheNEAto
considerartistic
excellence,merit,and
generalstandardsof
"decencyandrespect"
overlyvagueand
conduciveof
viewpoint
discriminationin
violationoftheFirst
Amendment's
freedomofexpression
guarantees?
Severallitigantschallengedtheconstitutionalityoftwoprovisionsinthe1996
CommunicationsDecencyAct.Intendedtoprotectminorsfromunsuitable
Internetmaterial,theActcriminalizedtheintentionaltransmissionof"obsceneor
indecent"messagesaswellasthetransmissionofinformationthatdepictsor
describes"sexualorexcretoryactivitiesororgans"inamannerdeemed
"offensive"bycommunitystandards.AfterbeingenjoinedbyaDistrictCourtfrom
enforcingtheaboveprovisions,exceptfortheoneconcerningobscenityandits
inherentprotectionagainstchildpornography,AttorneyGeneralJanetReno
appealeddirectlytotheSupremeCourtasprovidedforbytheAct'sspecialreview
provisions.
TheNationalFoundationontheArtsandHumanitiesActentruststheNational
EndowmentfortheArts(NEA)withdiscretiontoawardfinancialgrantstothe
arts.TheNEA'sbroaddecisionguidelinesare:"artisticandculturalsignificance,"
withemphasison"creativityandculturaldiversityprofessionalexcellence,"and
theencouragementof"publiceducationandappreciationofthearts."In1990,
CongressamendedthecriteriabyrequiringtheNEAtoconsider"artistic
excellenceandartisticmerittakingintoconsiderationgeneralstandardsof
decencyandrespectforthediversebeliefsandvaluesoftheAmericanpublic."
Aftersufferingafundingrejection,KarenFinley,alongwiththreeother
performanceartistsandtheNationalAssociationofArtists'Organizations,
challengedtheNEA'samendedstatutoryreviewproceedingsasunconstitutionally
vagueanddiscriminatory.Afterconsecutivedistrictandappellatecourtrulingsin
favorofFinley,theSupremeCourtgrantedtheNEAcertiorari
49.
50.
48.
Question
Did eitherorboth
typesof"buffer
zones"violate
Schenck'sFirst
Amendmentrightto
freedomofspeech?
es/1990
1999/1997/1997_97_371
National
Endowmentforthe
Artsv.Finley,524
U.S.569(1998)
es/1990
1999/1996/1996_96_511
Renov.ACLU,521
U.S.844(1997)
es/1990
1999/1996/1996_95_106
5
Case
Schenckv.Pro
ChoiceNetworkof
WesternNewYork,
519U.S.357(1997)
JigsawActivity
BackgroundFacts
ThisactionwasfiledbytheProChoiceNetworkofWesternNewYork(PCN),on
behalfofhealthcareproviders,toenjoinPaulSchenckandothersfrom
continuouslystagingblockadesandotherdisruptiveillegalactivitiesinfrontof
abortionclinics.Afteritsrestrainingorderprovedineffective,aDistrictCourt
issuedapreliminaryinjunctioncreating"fixedbufferzones,"whichprohibited
demonstrationswithinfifteenfeetofentrancestoabortionclinics,parkinglots,or
driveways.Thecourtalsocreated"floatingbufferzones"prohibitingprotesters
fromcomingwithin15feetofpeopleorvehiclesseekingaccesstotheclinics.
AftertheAppellateCourt'sdecisiontoupholdtheDistrictCourt'srulingthatthe
"bufferzones"wereconstitutional,theSupremeCourtgrantedSchenckcertiorari.
38
Decision
Page13of18
FreeSpeechPrinciple
53.
52.
51.
39
TheBoyScoutsofAmericarevokedformerEagleScoutandassistantscoutmaster
JamesDale'sadultmembershipwhentheorganizationdiscoveredthatDalewasa
homosexualandagayrightsactivist.In1992,DalefiledsuitagainsttheBoy
Scouts,allegingthattheBoyScoutshadviolatedtheNewJerseystatute
prohibitingdiscriminationonthebasisofsexualorientationinplacesofpublic
accommodation.TheBoyScouts,aprivate,notforprofitorganization,asserted
thathomosexualconductwasinconsistentwiththevaluesitwasattemptingto
instillinyoungpeople
AColoradostatutemakesitunlawfulforanypersonwithin100feetofahealth
carefacility'sentranceto"knowinglyapproach"within8feetofanotherperson,
withoutthatperson'sconsent,inordertopass"aleafletorhandbillto,displaya
signto,orengageinoralprotest,education,orcounselingwith[that]person...."
LeilaHillandothers,sidewalkcounselorswhoofferabortionalternativesto
womenenteringabortionclinics,soughttoenjointhestatute'senforcementin
statecourt,claimingviolationsoftheirFirstAmendmentfreespeechrightand
righttoafreepress.
BackgroundFacts
Duringthe1992raceforArkansas'ThirdCongressionalDistrict,theArkansas
EducationalTelevisionCommission(AETC)astateownedpublictelevision
broadcastersponsoredadebatebetweenthemajorpartycandidates.Running
asanindependentcandidatewithlittlepopularsupport,RalphForbessoughtto
participateinthedebatebutwasdeniedpermission.Afterunsuccessfully
challengingAETC'srefusalindistrictcourt,Forbesappealedandwonareversal.
AETC,thenappealedandtheSupremeCourtgrantedcertiorari.
Question
Wastheexclusionofa
ballotqualified
candidatefroma
debatesponsoredbya
stateownedpublic
televisionbroadcaster
aviolationofthe
candidate'sFirst
Amendmentrightto
freedomofspeech?
Did Colorado's
statutoryrequirement
thatspeakersobtain
consentfrompeople
within100feetofa
healthcarefacility's
entrancebefore
speaking,displaying
signs,ordistributing
leafletstosuchpeople
violatetheFirst
Amendmentrightsof
thespeaker?
Did theapplicationof
NewJersey'spublic
accommodationslaw
violatetheBoyScouts'
FirstAmendmentright
ofexpressive
associationtobar
homosexualsfrom
servingastroop
leaders?
es/1990
1999/1999/1999_99_699
BoyScoutsof
Americav.Dale,530
U.S.640(2000)
es/1990
1999/1999/1999_98_185
6
Hillv.Colorado,530
U.S.703(2000)
es/1990
1999/1997/1997_96_779
Case
Decision
ArkansasEd.
TelevisionComm.v.
Forbes,523U.S.666
(1998)
JigsawActivity
Page14of18
FreeSpeechPrinciple
55.
54.
40
Question
Did amunicipalpark
ordinancerequiring
individualstoobtaina
permitbefore
conductinglargescale
eventshaveto
contain,consistent
withtheFirst
Amendment,certain
procedural
safeguards?
Did theChild
Pornography
PreventionActof
1996abridgefreedom
ofspeechwhenit
proscribesa
significantuniverseof
speechthatisneither
obsceneunderMiller
v.Californianorchild
pornographyunder
NewYorkv.Ferber?
BackgroundFacts
TheChicagoParkDistrictisresponsibleforoperatingpublicparksandotherpublic
propertyinChicago.Pursuanttoitsauthority,theParkDistrictadoptedan
ordinancerequiringindividualstoobtainapermitbeforeconductinglargescale
eventsinpublicparks.TheordinanceprovidesthattheParkDistrictmaydenya
permitonanyof13specifiedgrounds,mustprocessapplicationswithin28days,
andmustexplainitsreasonsforadenial.Anunsuccessfulapplicantmayappeal,
first,totheParkDistrict'sgeneralsuperintendentandthentostatecourt.The
WindyCityHempDevelopmentBoardappliedonseveraloccasionsforpermitsto
holdralliesadvocatingthelegalizationofmarijuana.Somepermitsweregranted
andothersweredenied.Ultimately,theBoardfiledsuit,allegingthatthe
ordinanceisunconstitutionalonitsface.TheDistrictCourtgrantedthePark
Districtsummaryjudgment.TheCourtofAppealsaffirmed.
TheChildPornographyPreventionActof1996(CPPA)prohibits"anyvisual
depiction,includinganyphotograph,film,video,picture,orcomputeror
computergeneratedimageorpicture"that"is,orappearstobe,ofaminor
engaginginsexuallyexplicitconduct,"andanysexuallyexplicitimagethatis
"advertised,promoted,presented,described,ordistributedinsuchamannerthat
conveystheimpression"itdepicts"aminorengaginginsexuallyexplicitconduct."
TheFreeSpeechCoalition,anadultentertainmenttradeassociation,andothers
filedsuit,allegingthatthe"appearstobe"and"conveystheimpression"
provisionsareoverbroadandvagueand,thus,restrainworksotherwiseprotected
bytheFirstAmendment.ReversingtheDistrictCourt,theCourtofAppealsheld
theCPPAinvalidonitsface,findingittobesubstantiallyoverbroadbecauseit
bansmaterialsthatareneitherobsceneunderMillerv.California,413U.S.15,nor
producedbytheexploitationofrealchildrenasinNewYorkv.Ferber,458U.S.
747.
es/2000
2009/2001/2001_00_795
Ashcroftv.Free
SpeechCoalition,
535U.S.234(2002)
es/2000
2009/2001/2001_00_124
9
Case
Thomasv.Chicago
ParkDistrict,534
U.S.316(2002)
JigsawActivity
Decision
Page15of18
FreeSpeechPrinciple
58.
57.
56.
41
Question
DoestheFirst
Amendmentpermit
theMinnesota
SupremeCourtto
prohibitcandidates
forjudicialelectionin
thatstatefrom
announcingtheir
viewsondisputed
legalandpolitical
issues?
Did the
Commonwealthof
Virginia'scross
burningstatute,which
prohibitstheburning
ofacrosswiththe
intentofintimidating
anypersonorgroup
ofpersons,violatethe
FirstAmendment?
Does Congresshave
theauthorityto
requirelibrariesto
censorInternet
contentinorderto
receivefederal
funding?
BackgroundFacts
Minnesota'sConstitutionprovidesfortheselectionofallstatejudgesbypopular
election.TheannouncementclauseoftheMinnesotaSupremeCourt'scanonof
judicialconductprohibitsacandidatefromannouncinghisorherviewson
disputedlegalorpoliticalissues.Whilerunningforassociatejusticeofthe
MinnesotaSupremeCourt,GregoryWersalfiledsuit,seekingadeclarationthat
theannounceclauseviolatestheFirstAmendmentandaninjunctionagainstits
enforcement.Wersalallegedthathewasforcedtorefrainfromannouncinghis
viewsondisputedissuesduringthe1998campaign,tothepointwherehe
declinedresponsetoquestionsputtohimbythepressandpublicoutofconcern
thathemightrunafouloftheannounceclause.TheDistrictCourtfoundthatthe
announcementclausedidnotviolatetheFirstAmendment.TheCourtofAppeals
affirmed.
BarryBlack,RichardElliott,andJonathanO'Marawereconvictedseparatelyof
violatingaVirginiastatutethatmakesitafelony"foranyperson...,withtheintent
ofintimidatinganypersonorgroup...,toburn...acrossonthepropertyof
another,ahighwayorotherpublicplace,"andspecifiesthat"anysuch
burning...shallbeprimafacieevidenceofanintenttointimidateapersonor
group."Attrial,BlackobjectedonFirstAmendmentgroundstoajuryinstruction
thatcrossburningbyitselfissufficientevidencefromwhichtherequired"intent
tointimidate"couldbeinferred.Hewasfoundguilty.O'Marapleadedguiltyto
chargesofviolatingthestatute,butreservedtherighttochallengeits
constitutionality.InElliott'strial,thejudgedidnotgiveaninstructiononthe
statute'sprimafacieevidenceprovision.Ultimately,theVirginiaSupremeCourt
held,amongotherthings,thatthecrossburningstatuteisunconstitutionalonits
faceandthattheprimafacieevidenceprovisionrendersthestatuteoverbroad
becausetheprobabilityofprosecutionunderthestatutechillstheexpressionof
protectedspeech
CongresspassedtheChildren'sInternetProtectionAct(CIPA)in2000,requiring
publiclibrariestoinstallInternetfilteringsoftwareontheircomputersinorderto
qualifyforfederalfunding.TheAmericanLibraryAssociationandothers
challengedthelaw,claimingthatitimproperlyrequiredthemtorestricttheFirst
Amendmentrightsoftheirpatrons.Asstipulatedbythelaw,athreejudgepanel
heardthecaseandruledunanimouslythattheCIPAviolatedtheFirst
Amendment.
es/2000
2009/2002/2002_02_361
UnitedStatesv.
AmericanLibrary
Association,539
U.S.194(2003)
es/2000
2009/2002/2002_01_110
7
Virginiav.Black,
538U.S.343(2003)
es/2000
2009/2001/2001_01_521
Case
RepublicanPartyof
Minnesotav.White,
536U.S.765(2002)
JigsawActivity
Decision
Page16of18
FreeSpeechPrinciple
60.
59.
42
Question
IstheChildOnline
ProtectionAct's
requirementthat
onlinepublishers
preventchildrenfrom
accessing"material
thatisharmfulto
minors"likelyto
violatetheFirst
Amendmentby
restrictingtoomuch
protectedspeechand
usingamethodthatis
nottheleast
restrictiveone
available?
TheSolomonAmendment,10U.S.C.983(b)(1),withholdssomefederalfunding
Did theSolomon
fromcollegesanduniversitiesthatdenyU.S.militaryrecruitersthesameaccessto Amendment,which
studentsthatotheremployersaregiven.TheForumforAcademicand
withholdscertain
InstitutionalRightschallengedthelaw,arguingthatitviolatedtheschools'First
federalfundsfrom
Amendmentrighttoexpressiveassociationbyrequiringthemtoassistinmilitary
collegesand
recruitment.
universitiesthat
restricttheaccessof
militaryrecruitersto
students,violatethe
FirstAmendment?
BackgroundFacts
CongresspassedtheChildOnlineProtectionAct(COPA)topreventminorsfrom
accessingpornographyonline.TheAmericanCivilLibertiesUnion(ACLU)and
onlinepublisherssuedinfederalcourttopreventenforcementoftheAct,arguing
thatitviolatedthefreespeechclauseoftheFirstAmendment.
es/2000
2009/2005/2005_04_115
2
Rumsfeldv.Forum
forAcademicand
InstitutionalRights
(FAIR),547U.S.___
(2006)
es/2000
2009/2003/2003_03_218
Case
Ashcroftv.
AmericanCivil
LibertiesUnion,542
U.S.656(2004)
JigsawActivity
Decision
Page17of18
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Question
DoestheFirst
Amendmentallow
publicschoolsto
prohibitstudentsfrom
displayingmessages
promotingtheuseof
illegaldrugsatschool
supervisedevents?
Did acity'srefusalto
placeareligious
organization's
monumentinapublic
parkviolatethat
organization'sFirst
Amendmentfree
speechrightwhenthe
parkalreadycontains
amonumentfroma
differentreligious
group?
BackgroundFacts
Ataschoolsupervisedevent,JosephFrederickheldupabannerwiththemessage
"BongHits4Jesus,"aslangreferencetomarijuanasmoking.PrincipalDeborah
MorsetookawaythebannerandsuspendedFrederickfortendays.Shejustified
heractionsbycitingtheschool'spolicyagainstthedisplayofmaterialthat
promotestheuseofillegaldrugs.Fredericksuedunder42U.S.C.1983,thefederal
civilrightsstatute,allegingaviolationofhisFirstAmendmentrighttofreedomof
speech.
Summum,areligiousorganization,sentalettertothemayorofPleasantGrove,
Utah,askingtoplaceamonumentinoneofthecity'sparks.Althoughthepark
alreadyhousedamonumenttotheTenCommandments,themayordenied
Summum'srequestbecausethemonumentdidnot"directlyrelatetothehistory
ofPleasantGrove."Summumfiledsuitagainstthecityinfederalcourtciting,
amongotherthings,aviolationofitsFirstAmendmentfreespeechright.
es/2000
2009/2008/2008_07_665
PleasantGroveCity
v.Summum,555
U.S.___(2009)
es/2000
2009/2006/2006_06_278
Case
Morsev.Frederick,
551U.S.___(2007)
JigsawActivity
Sources:
OYEZhttp://www.oyez.org/
JusticeLearning:FreeSpeechTimelinehttp://www.justicelearning.org/ViewIssue.aspx?IssueID=4
LawLibraryAmericanLawandLegalInformationhttp://law.jrank.org/
62.
61.
43
Decision
Page18of18
FreeSpeechPrinciple
44
Page1of2
of2
JusticeOConnor:(Starttime:26:44)
Well,IthinkwehaveseenatleastinthisCourtthatitdoesmatterifthespeechisoccurringinapublicschool,oraschoolwherechildren
areundertheageofbecominganadult,under18,andthattheschooldoesactassubstituteparentalauthorityineffectwhileachildisin
schoolandtheschoolcansetcertainparametersofbehaviorforthestudentsthatincludespeech.IthinkwehaveseentheCourtacknowledge
somethingtothateffect,butatthesametime,therearedifferentcircumstances.Andifallthestudentissayingis,Ithinkthelegislaturein
thisstateshouldlegalizemarijuanawedidnthavethatcasehere,butIsuspecttheresultmightbedifferentthanastudentsaying,Now,
everybodygooutandsmokemarijuana.Weknowitsillegal,butyououghttodoit.See,twodifferentthings,arentthey?AndtheCourthas
recognizedthatandprobablyproperlyso.Theexamplethatisoftengivenisthatevenforanadult,itsOKtoprohibitpeoplefromyelling
Fire!inacrowdedtheaterwhenitisnttruejusttostimulateeverybodypanickingandtryingtogetout.Thatcanbeprohibited.Itsnota
formofprotectedspeechinotherwords.Sotherearesomelimits,andthequestionforthecourtsalwaysiswheredowefindthoselimitsand
howdowedefinetheboundaries?
JusticeBreyer:(Starttime24:47)
Lookatwhatwevebeendoinginthelasthalfhourorso.Youregettingalittleinsightintoourjobasjudges.Westartwithaprinciple,andthe
principleisonewecanprettymuchagreeon.TheConstitutionsays,Congress...shallnotabridgethefreedomofspeech.Thatmeansall
government,notjustCongress.Butitdoesntsaywhatthefreedomofspeechis,doesIt?Sothatslefttopeopletoworkout.
NowwestartedwithwhatIthinkistheeasiestprinciplebecauseitsthemostwidelyaccepted,thattheworstthingyoucandobywayof
abridgementisstopsomebodyfromtalkingbecauseyoudontlikewhathesays.Nowthatscalledhisviewpoint.Oritscalledthecontentor
theexpressionorthepointofview.Now,itseasiesttosay,Well,certainlythatsprotected.Buteventhere,youcanfindsomeborderline
cases.Andnowwebegintomoveawayfromthatandsay,doesitmatterifhesinthearmy?Doesitmatterifhesinhighschool?Doesit
matterifhesingrammarschool?Doesitmatterwhatthesubjectis?Doesitmatterwhenitssaid?Doesitmatterwhyitssaid?Doesit
matter?Doesitmatter?Doesitmatter?Andthesearenotjustasked,whichweweredoing,tomakeitdifficultforyou.Theywereasked
becausethatswhathappensinacourtthatsconcernedwithfreespeech.Wegetonevariationafteranotherandwehavetodecidewhatthe
principlesareintheseverydifferentcircumstances.Andthatisntsoeasybecausetheonlythingweallagreeupon,iswhatevertheprincipleis
inthiscase,itsgoingtobethesameforallsimilarcases.
Instructions:
1. RevisittheclosingwordsofJusticeBreyerandJusticeOConnorinthevideobyreplayingthevideoandreadingthetranscriptsbelow.
2. Completethejigsawactivityinassignedgroups.
3. Afterthelargegroupclassdiscussionofthecases,completethechartonthenextpagetosummarizewhatyoulearned.
FindingBoundariesforFreeSpeechinSupremeCourtDecisions
MattersofInterpretation
Activity
FindingBoundariesforFreeSpeechinSupremeCourtDecisions
MattersofInterpretation
Activity
Page2of2
Foundationalprinciple(startingpoint):Congressshallmakenolaw...abridgingthefreedomofspeech... U.S.Constitution,FirstAmendment
Instructions:AftertheclasscompletesthejigsawactivityforanalyzingtheSupremeCourtcases,summarizeprinciplesusedfordefiningthelimitsoffreespeech
andproviderelatedexamples.Groupingsshouldbeeasilyidentified.
45
Activity
FreeSpeechScenariostoDecide
Instructions:Reflectontheprinciplesusedbythecourtstoresolvefreespeechdisputesasyoudiscuss
thefollowingscenariosinyourgroup.
1.Offcampusspeech(AscenariodescribedbyJusticeBreyerinthevideo)
Thinkingitwouldbeafunthingtodo,agroupofstudentsgettogetheratsomeoneshousetowritea
newspaperabouttheworstthingstheirteacherssaidthatdayanddistributeitamongsttheirfriends.
Thenewspapercontainsinsultsandusescrudeandoffensivelanguagewhendescribingtheirteachers.
Nowtheschoolwantstodisciplinethemforit.Cantheydoit?Theschoolthinksitsabadideafor
educationtohavethestudentsmeetintheirhousesandpassoutanewspaperthatcriticizesallthe
teachersinveryrude,explicitlyawful,slangyways,sotheysay,Thisispartofourdiscipline.
Q:Howfarshouldtheboundariesofauthorityforaschoolreachandwhatcriteriashouldbeusedto
makethatdecision?
2.Dresscode
Astudentpersistedinwearingsaggingpantstoschooleventhoughhewastolditwasagainstthehigh
schoolsdresscode.Afterrepeatedviolations,hewasgivenalongtermsuspension.Thestudent
arguedthathiswearingofthesaggingpantsconveyedtheparticularmessageofAfricanAmerican
heritageinthehiphopfashionandlifestyle.
Q:WasthestudentsFirstAmendmentrighttofreespeechdenied?
3.Blogger
Administratorsbarahighschoolstudentfromrunninginastudentelectionafterthestudentcriticizes
theminablogfortheirhandlingofastudentfestival.Intheblog,thestudentcallstheadministrators
namesandasksfellowstudentsandparentstocomplaintothesuperintendenttomakehimmad.
Inappropriatelanguagewasusedinthepost,whichwaswrittenandsentfromhome.
Q:Doesthestudentbloggerhaveafreespeechdefense?
4.Cyberbullies
Astudentwrotederogatoryandhatefulcommentsaboutanotherstudentandpostedthemonlinefor
everyonetoread.Thecommentscausedsignificantemotionaldistressandinterferedwiththe
studentsabilitytoparticipatefullyinschool.Schoolofficialspunishedtheauthor,andtheparents
aresuingthefamily.Theschooltakesthepositionthatitcanpunishstudentconductifitdisrupts
classworkorinvolvessubstantialdisorderorinvasionoftherightsofothersevenifthestudentis
notinclass.
Q:WhendostudentsonlinecommentscrossthelineandbecomeFirstAmendmentconcerns?
ShouldInternetspeechberegulated,andifso,whatcriteriashouldbeused?
Woulditmatterifateacherwasbeingdefamedinsteadofastudent?
46
Teacher Materials
Teachers Chart for jigsaw activity: A Collection of Supreme Court Cases: Free Speech
Answer Key: Ten Questions
Lesson:Fre
47
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
48
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901
1939/1939/1939_514
Thornhillv.Alabama,310U.S.88
(1940)
1939/1930/1930_584
Strombergv.PeopleOfStateOf
California,283U.S.359(1931)
1939/1925/1925_3
Whitneyv.California,274U.S.
357(1927)
1939/1922/1922_19
Gitlowv.NewYork,268U.S.652
(1925)
1939/1919/1919_316
Abramsv.UnitedStates,250U.S.
616(1919)
1939/1918/1918_437
Case
Schenckv.UnitedStates,249U.S.
47(1919)
Inan8to1decision,theCourtheldthatSection3448oftheAlabamaStateCodewasfaciallyinvalid.The
Courtheldthatlaborrelationswere"notmattersofmerelocalorprivateconcern,"andthatfreediscussion
concerninglaborconditionsandindustrialdisputeswas"indispensabletotheeffectiveandintelligentuseof
theprocessesofpopulargovernmenttoshapethedestinyofmodernindustrialsociety."TheCourtfound
thatnoclearandpresentdangerofdestructionoflifeorpropertyorofbreachofthepeacewasinherentto
laborpicketing,andthusdeservedFirstAmendmentprotection
Page1of13
Antipicketinglawheld
unconstitutional;no
clearandpresent
dangerevident.
Freespeechguarantee
appliestothestates,
notjusttofederal
government.
Speechdeemed
dangeroustopublic
securitycanbe
forbidden.
Inaunanimousdecision,theCourtsustainedWhitney'sconvictionandheldthattheActdidnotviolatethe
Speechintending to
Constitution.TheCourtfoundthattheActviolatedneithertheDueProcessClausenortheEqualProtection endangerthe
Clause,andthatfreedomofspeechguaranteedbytheFirstAmendmentwasnotanabsoluteright.The
foundationsof
Courtargued"thataState...maypunishthosewhoabusethisfreedombyutterances...tendingto...
organizedgovernment
endangerthefoundationsoforganizedgovernmentandthreatenitsoverthrowbyunlawfulmeans"andwas maybeprevented.
notopentoquestion.ThedecisionismostnotablefortheconcurringopinionwrittenbyJusticeLouis
Brandeis,inwhichhearguedthatonlyclear,present,andimminentthreatsof"seriousevils"couldjustify
suppressionofspeech.
TheCourtrulesthatthewoman'snonverbal,symbolicexpressionofherantigovernmentopinionsis
Symbolicspeech
protectedjustasareanywordsthatshemightwriteorspeaktoexpressthoseopinions..
protected.
Marketplaceconcept
forthevalueof
competingideas.
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Clearandpresent
dangerthreshold.
NOTE:Caseshighlightedinredcontainlanguage
thatmaybeinappropriate.Besuretoreview
beforeusing.
MajorityOpinion
JusticeOliverWendellHolmes,speakingforaunanimousCourt,concludedthatSchenckisnotprotectedin
thissituation.Thecharacterofeveryactdependsonthecircumstances."Thequestionineverycaseis
whetherthewordsusedareusedinsuchcircumstancesandareofsuchanatureastocreateaclearand
presentdangerthattheywillbringaboutthesubstantiveevilsthatCongresshasarighttoprevent."During
wartime,utterancestolerableinpeacetimecanbepunished.
Noandno.Theact'samendmentsareconstitutional, andthedefendants'convictionsareaffirmed.InJustice
JohnClarke'smajorityopinion,theleafletsareanappealtoviolentrevolution,acallforageneralstrike,and
anattempttocurtailproductionofmunitions.Theleafletshadatendencytoencouragewarresistanceand
tocurtailwarproduction.JusticesHolmesandBrandeisdissentedonnarrowground:Thenecessaryintent
hadnotbeenshown.Theseviewsweretobecomeaclassiclibertarianpronouncement.
Thresholdissue:DoestheFirstAmendmentapplytothestates?Yes,byvirtueofthelibertyprotectedby
dueprocessthatnostateshalldeny(14thAmendment).Onthemerits,astatemayforbidbothspeechand
publicationiftheyhaveatendencytoresultinactiondangeroustopublicsecurity,eventhoughsuch
utterancescreatenoclearandpresentdanger.Therationaleofthemajorityhassometimesbeencalledthe
"dangeroustendency"test.Thelegislaturemaydecidethatanentireclassofspeechissodangerousthatit
shouldbeprohibited.Thoselegislativedecisionswillbeupheldifnotunreasonable,andthedefendantwill
bepunishedevenifherspeechcreatednodangeratall.
(SupplementforJigsawActivity)
TeachersChart
11.
10.
9.
8.
7.
49
1949/1948/1948_272
Terminiellov.Chicago,337U.S.1
(1949)
1949/1942/1942_591
WestVirginiaStateBoardofEd.
v.Barnette,319U.S.624(1943)
1949/1941/1941_255
Chaplinskyv.StateofNew
Hampshire,315U.S.568(1942)
1939/1939/1939_690
Ina6to3decision,theCourtoverruleditsdecisioninMinersvilleSchoolDistrictv.Gobitis andheldthat
compellingpublicschoolchildrentosalutetheflagwasunconstitutional.TheCourtfoundthatsuchasalute
wasaformofutteranceandwasameansofcommunicatingideas."Compulsoryunificationofopinion,"the
Courtheld,wasdoomedtofailureandwasantitheticaltoFirstAmendmentvalues.Writingforthemajority,
JusticeRobertJacksonarguedthat"[i]fthereisanyfixedstarinourconstitutionalconstellation,itisthatno
official,highorpetty,canprescribewhatshallbeorthodoxinpolitics,nationalism,religion,orothermatters
ofopinionorforcecitizenstoconfessbywordoracttheirfaiththerein."
Ina5to4decision,theCourtheldthatthe"breachofthepeace"ordinanceunconstitutionallyinfringed
uponthefreedomofspeech.Notingthat"[t]hevitalityofcivilandpoliticalinstitutionsinoursociety
dependsonfreediscussion,"theCourtheldthatspeechcouldberestrictedonlyintheeventthatitwas
"likelytoproduceaclearandpresentdangerofaserioussubstantiveevilthatrisesfarabovepublic
inconvenience,annoyance,orunrest."JusticeWilliamDouglaswrotethat"afunctionoffreespeechunder
oursystemistoinvitedispute.Itmayindeedbestserveitshighpurposewhenitinducesaconditionof
unrest,createsdissatisfactionwithconditionsastheyare,orevenstirspeopletoanger."
No.Inan8to1decision,theCourtdeclinedtomakeitself"theschoolboardforthecountry"andupheld
themandatoryflagsalute.TheCourtheldthatthestate'sinterestin"nationalcohesion"was"inferiorto
noneinthehierarchyoflegalvalues"andthatnationalunitywas"thebasisofnationalsecurity."Theflag,
theCourtfound,wasanimportantsymbolofnationalunityandcouldbeapartoflegislativeinitiatives
designed"topromoteinthemindsofchildrenwhoattendthecommonschoolsanattachmenttothe
institutionsoftheircountry."
No.Someformsofexpressionamongthemobscenityandfightingwordsdonotconveyideasandthus are
notsubjecttoFirstAmendmentprotection.Inthiscase,Chaplinskyutteredfightingwords,i.e.,wordsthat
"inflictinjuryortendtoinciteanimmediatebreachofthepeace."
MinersvilleSchoolDistrictv.
Gobitis,310U.S.586(1940)
1939/1939/1939_632
MajorityOpinion
Yes.Inaunanimousdecision,theCourtheldthatwhilegeneralregulationsonsolicitationwerelegitimate,
restrictionsbasedonreligiousgroundswerenot.Becausethestatuteallowedlocalofficialstodetermine
whichcauseswerereligiousandwhichoneswerenot,itviolatedtheFirstandFourteenthAmendments.The
Courtalsoheldthatwhilethemaintenanceofpublicorderwasavalidstateinterest,itcouldnotbeusedto
justifythesuppressionof"freecommunicationofviews."TheCantwells'message,whileoffensivetomany,
didnotentailanythreatof"bodilyharm"andwasprotectedreligiousspeech.
Page2of13
Requiringflagsalute
violatesfreespeech
(overturnsearlier
ruling).
Arulingagainst
compelledideological
speech.
Scopeoffighting
wordslimited.
Fightingwords
exceptionestablished.
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Establishedthetime,
manner,andplace
rulethatsaysthestate
canregulatethefree
exerciserightto
ensureitispracticed
inareasonabletime,
mannerandplace.
Upholdstheflag
salutelawandrelates
ittoissuesofnational
security.
beforeusing.
Case
Cantwellv.StateofConnecticut,
310U.S.296(1940)
TeachersChart
17.
16.
15.
14.
13.
12
50
1969/1965/1965_22
TimeInc.v.Hill,385U.S.374
(1967)
1969/1963/1963_39
NewYorkTimesv.Sullivan,376
U.S.254(1964)
1969/1961/1961_26
Garnerv.Louisiana,368U.S.157
(1961)
1959/1956/1956_582
Rothv.UnitedStates,354U.S.
476(1957)
1959/1951/1951_118
Beauharnaisv.Illinois,343U.S.
250(1952)
1959/1950/1950_336
Case
Dennisv.UnitedStates,341U.S.
494(1951)
Yes.Ina6to3opinion,theCourtsetasidetheAppellaterulingagainstTimebecausethelowercourtfailed
toinstructthejurythatTime'sliabilitywascontingentuponashowingthatitknowinglyandrecklessly
publishedfalsestatementsabouttheHillfamily.TheCourtexplainedthatabsentafindingofsuchmalicious
intentonthepartofapublisher,pressstatementsareprotectedundertheFirstAmendmentevenifthey
areotherwisefalseorinaccurate.TheCourtremandedforretrialunderthenewjuryinstruction.
TheCourtheldthattheFirstAmendmentprotectsthepublicationofallstatements,evenfalseones,about
theconductofpublicofficialsexceptwhenstatementsaremadewithactualmalice(withknowledgethat
theyarefalseorinrecklessdisregardoftheirtruthorfalsity).Underthisnewstandard,Sullivan'scase
collapsed.
Page3of13
Pressstatementsare
protectedunderthe
FirstAmendmentifa
findingofmalicious
intentisnotpresent.
Actualmalice
standardsestablished.
Symbolicspeech=
peacefulsitins.
Obscenityexceptionto
FirstAmendment
established.
Upholdsgrouplibel
law
Libelagainstgroups
hasnoplaceinthe
marketplaceofideas.
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Appliesstandardof
clearandpresent
danger.
beforeusing.
MajorityOpinion
Ina6to2decision,theCourtupheldtheconvictionsoftheCommunistPartyleadersandfoundthatthe
SmithActdidnot"inherently"violatetheFirstAmendment.Inthepluralityopinion,theCourtheldthat
therewasadistinctionbetweenthemereteachingofcommunistphilosophiesandactiveadvocacyofthose
ideas.Suchadvocacycreateda"clearandpresentdanger"thatthreatenedthegovernment.Giventhe
gravityoftheconsequencesofanattemptedputsch,theCourtheldthatsuccessorprobabilityofsuccess
wasnotnecessarytojustifyrestrictionsonthefreedomofspeech
No.Ina54opinionauthoredbyJusticeFelixFrankfurter,theCourtconcludedthatBeauharnais'speech
amountedtolibelandwasthereforebeyondconstitutionalprotection.Citingtheracialtensionsoftheday,
theCourtcharacterizedBeauharnais'speechasprovocativeandrejectedtheargumentthattheIllinois
statutecouldbeeasilyabused,stating,"Everypowermaybeabused,butthepossibilityofabuseisapoor
reasonfordenyingIllinoisthepowertoadoptmeasuresagainstcriminallibelssanctionedbycenturiesof
AngloAmericanlaw."
Ina6to3decisionwrittenbyJusticeWilliamJ.Brennan,Jr.,theCourtheldthatobscenitywasnot "within
theareaofconstitutionallyprotectedspeechorpress."TheCourtnotedthattheFirstAmendmentwasnot
intendedtoprotecteveryutteranceorformofexpression,suchasmaterialsthatwere"utterlywithout
redeemingsocialimportance."TheCourtheldthatthetesttodetermineobscenitywas"whethertothe
averageperson,applyingcontemporarycommunitystandards,thedominantthemeofthematerialtakenas
awholeappealstoprurientinterest."TheCourtheldthatsuchadefinitionofobscenitygavesufficientfair
warningandsatisfiedthedemandsofDueProcess.BrennanlaterreversedhispositiononthisissueinMiller
v.California(1973).
TheCourtoverturnedtheconvictionsoffiveAfricanAmericansfordisturbingthepeace.Therecords
containednoevidencetosupportafindingthatthepetitionershaddisturbedthepeace.
TeachersChart
23.
22.
21.
20.
19.
18.
51
http://law.jrank.org/pages/12820/Cohen
vCalifornia.html
Cohenv.California,403U.S.15
(1971)
1969/1968/1968_492
Brandenburgv.Ohio,395U.S.
444(1969)
1969/1968/1968_293
Stanleyv.Georgia,
394U.S.557(1969)
1969/1968/1968_21
TheCourtheldthattheFirstandFourteenthAmendmentsprohibitedmakingprivatepossessionofobscene
materialsacrime.Inhismajorityopinion,JusticeThurgoodMarshallnotedthattherightstoreceive
informationandtopersonalprivacywerefundamentaltoafreesociety.Marshallthenfoundthat"[i]fthe
FirstAmendmentmeansanything,itmeansthataStatehasnobusinesstellingaman,sittingaloneinhis
ownhouse,whatbookshemayreadorwhatfilmshemaywatch.Ourwholeconstitutionalheritagerebels
atthethoughtofgivinggovernmentthepowertocontrolmen'sminds."TheCourtdistinguishedbetween
themereprivatepossessionofobscenematerialsandtheproductionanddistributionofsuchmaterials.The
latter,theCourtheld,couldberegulatedbythestates.
TheCourt'spercuriamopinion heldthattheOhiolawviolatedBrandenburg'srighttofreespeech.TheCourt
usedatwoprongedtesttoevaluatespeechacts:(1)speechcanbeprohibitedifitis"directedatincitingor
producingimminentlawlessaction"and(2)itis"likelytoinciteorproducesuchaction."Thecriminal
syndicalismactmadeillegaltheadvocacyandteachingofdoctrineswhileignoringwhetherornotthat
advocacyandteachingwouldactuallyinciteimminentlawlessaction.Thefailuretomakethisdistinction
renderedthelawoverlybroadandinviolationoftheConstitution.
Yes.InanopinionbyJusticeJohnMarshallHarlan,theCourtreasonedthattheexpletive,whileprovocative,
wasnotdirectedtowardanyone;besides,therewasnoevidencethatpeopleinsubstantialnumberswould
beprovokedintosomekindofphysicalactionbythewordsonhisjacket.Harlanrecognizedthat"oneman's
vulgarityisanother'slyric."Indoingso,theCourtprotectedtwoelementsofspeech:theemotive(the
expressionofemotion)andthecognitive(theexpressionofideas).
TheCourtdecidedthatthewearingofarmbandswas"closelyakinto'purespeech'"andprotectedbythe
FirstAmendment.Schoolenvironmentsimplylimitationsonfreeexpression,butheretheprincipalslacked
justificationforimposinganysuchlimits.Theprincipalshadfailedtoshowthattheforbiddenconductwould
substantiallyinterferewithappropriateschooldiscipline.
Tinkerv.DesMoinesInd.Comm.
SchoolDist.,393U.S.503(1969)
1969/1967/1967_510
Pickeringv.BoardOfEducation,
391U.S.563(1968)
1969/1967/1967_232
MajorityOpinion
No.The7to1majority,speakingthroughChiefJusticeEarlWarren,establishedatesttodeterminewhether
governmentalregulationinvolvingsymbolicspeechwasjustified.Theformulaexamineswhetherthe
regulationisunrelatedtocontentandnarrowlytailoredtoachievethegovernment'sinterest."[W]ethinkit
clear,"wroteWarren,"thatagovernmentregulationissufficientlyjustifiedifitiswithintheconstitutional
poweroftheGovernment;ifitfurthersanimportantorsubstantialgovernmentalinterest;ifthe
governmentalinterestisunrelatedtothesuppressionoffreeexpression;andiftheincidentalrestrictionon
allegedFirstAmendmentfreedomsisnotgreaterthanisessentialtothefurtheranceofthatinterest."
PublicschoolteachersareentitledtosomeFirstAmendmentprotectionand theteacherwasspeakingout
moreasacitizenthanasapublicemployeewhenhewrotetheletter.Thecourtsaystheinterestsofpublic
employeesincommentingonmattersofpublicconcernascitizensmustbeconsideredwiththe
government'sinterestinpromotingefficientservicesthroughitsemployees.
Page4of13
Antiwarexpressionis
ruledprotected
speech.
Advocacyofviolence
protectedspeech
exceptinrare
circumstances.
Ownershipofobscene
materialprotected.
Teachersentitledto
someFirst
Amendmentrights
whenspeakingout
moreasacitizenthan
asapublicemployee.
Studentsrightto
symbolicspeech.
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Limitsplacedon
symbolicspeechright.
beforeusing.
Case
UnitedStatesv.O'Brien,391U.S.
367(1968)
TeachersChart
28.
27.
26.
25.
24.
52
1979/1975/1975_75_436
Buckleyv.Valeo,424U.S.1
(1976)
1979/1973/1973_72_617
Gertzv.RobertWelchInc.,418
U.S.323(1974)
1979/1971/1971_70_73
Millerv.California,413U.S.15
(1973)
1979/1972/1972_71_1051
ParisAdultTheatrev.Slaton,413
U.S.49(1973)
1979/1971/1971_71_492
Case
LloydCorp.v.Tanner,407U.S.
551(1972)
Ina5to4decision,theCourtheldthatobscenefilmsdidnotacquireconstitutionalprotectionsimply
becausetheywereexhibitedforconsentingadultsonly.Conductinvolvingconsentingadults,theCourt
argued,wasnotalwaysbeyondthescopeofgovernmentalregulation.TheCourtfoundthattherewere
"legitimatestateinterestsatstakeinstemmingthetideofcommercializedobscenity,"includingthe
community'squalityoflifeandpublicsafety.TheCourtalsonotedthatconclusiveproofofaconnection
betweenantisocialbehaviorandobscenematerialswasnotnecessarytojustifytheGeorgialaw.
Ina5to4decision,theCourtheldthatobscenematerialsdidnotenjoyFirstAmendmentprotection.The
CourtmodifiedthetestforobscenityestablishedinRothv.UnitedStatesandMemoirsv.Massachusetts,
holdingthat"[t]hebasicguidelinesforthetrieroffactmustbe:(a)whether'theaverageperson,applying
contemporarycommunitystandards'wouldfindthatthework,takenasawhole,appealstotheprurient
interest...(b)whethertheworkdepictsordescribes,inapatentlyoffensiveway,sexualconductspecifically
definedbytheapplicablestatelaw;and(c)whetherthework,takenasawhole,lacksseriousliterary,
artistic,political,orscientificvalue."TheCourtrejectedthe"utterlywithoutredeemingsocialvalue"testof
theMemoirsdecision.
TheCourtreversedthelowercourtdecisionandheldthatGertz'srightshadbeenviolated.JusticeLewis
PowellarguedthattheapplicationoftheNewYorkTimesv.Sullivanstandardinthiscasewasinappropriate
becauseGertzwasneitherapublicofficialnorapublicfigure.Inthecontextoftheopinion,Powelladvanced
manylinesofreasoningtoestablishthatordinarycitizensshouldbeallowedmoreprotectionfromlibelous
statementsthanindividualsinthepubliceye.However,continuedPowell,theactualmalicestandarddidnot
loseallsignificanceincasesinvolvingordinarycitizensasheadvisedstatestouseitinassessingclaimsfor
punitivedamagesbycitizenssuingforlibel.
Inthiscomplicatedcase,theCourtarrivedattwoimportantconclusions.First,itheldthatrestrictionson
individualcontributionstopoliticalcampaignsandcandidatesdidnotviolatetheFirstAmendmentsincethe
limitationsoftheFECAenhancethe"integrityofoursystemofrepresentativedemocracy"byguarding
againstunscrupulouspractices.Second,theCourtfoundthatgovernmentalrestrictionofindependent
expendituresincampaigns,thelimitationonexpendituresbycandidatesfromtheirownpersonalorfamily
resources,andthelimitationontotalcampaignexpendituresdidviolatetheFirstAmendment.Sincethese
practicesdonotnecessarilyenhancethepotentialforcorruptionthatindividualcontributionstocandidates
do,theCourtfoundthatrestrictingthemdidnotserveagovernmentinterestgreatenoughtowarranta
curtailmentonfreespeechandassociation.
Page5of13
Campaign
expenditureslinkedto
politicalspeech.
Ordinarycitizens
shouldbeallowed
moreprotectionfrom
libelousstatements
thanindividualsinthe
publiceye.
Definitionofobscenity
isclarified.
Statescanregulate
obsceneexhibits.
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Limitsfreespeechon
privateproperty.
beforeusing.
MajorityOpinion
U.S.SupremeCourtrulesthattherearecertainplaceswhereindividualsdonothaveanunlimitedrightto
freespeech,andprivatepropertyisoneofthem.Asaresult,thecourtdecidesthatownersofashopping
mallmaypreventantiwaractivistsfromhandingoutleafletsthere.
TeachersChart
33.
32.
31.
30.
29.
53
MajorityOpinion
Yes.Ina71decision,theCourtheldthattheFirstAmendmentprotectswillingspeakersandwilling listeners
equally.TheCourtnotedthatincasesofcommercialspeech,suchaspriceadvertising,freedomofspeech
protectionsapplyjustastheywouldtononcommercialspeech.Evenspeechthatissoldforprofit,or
involvesfinancialsolicitations,isprotected.TheCourtconcludedthatalthoughtheVirginiaStateBoardof
Pharmacyhasalegitimateinterestinpreservingprofessionalismamongitsmembers,itmaynotdosoatthe
expenseofpublicknowledgeaboutlawfulcompetitivepricingterms.
FirstAmendmentrightsdonotextendtoprivatelyownedshoppingcenters.Thecourtsaysthatbecause
therewasnodedicatedpublicuseoftheprivatelyownedshoppingcenterwherestrikingworkerswere
picketing,peopledidnothavethesamefreespeechrightthereastheywouldinpublicfacilitieselsewhere.
Page6of13
Establishes
commercialspeech
test.
FCCcanregulate
indecentspeech.
Individualscould
refusetofosteran
ideatheyfindmorally
objectionable.
Doesntapply to
privatelyowned
shoppingcenters.
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Protectscommercial
speech.
beforeusing.
Ina63decision,theCourtheldthatNewHampshirecouldnotconstitutionallyrequirecitizenstodisplay
thestatemottoupontheirvehiclelicenseplates.TheCourtfoundthatthestatuteinquestioneffectively
requiredindividualsto"usetheirprivatepropertyasa'mobilebillboard'fortheState'sideological
1979/1976/1976_75_1453
message."TheCourtheldthattheState'sinterestsinrequiringthemottodidnotoutweighfreespeech
principlesundertheFirstAmendment,including"therightofindividualstoholdapointofviewdifferent
fromthemajorityandtorefusetofoster...anideatheyfindmorallyobjectionable."
FCCv.PacificaFoundation,438
No.TheCourtheldthatlimitedcivilsanctionscouldconstitutionallybeinvokedagainstaradiobroadcastof
U.S.726(1978)
patentlyoffensivewordsdealingwithsexandexecration.Thewordsneednotbeobscenetowarrant
http://law.jrank.org/pages/12652/Federal
sanctions.Audience,medium,timeofday,andmethodoftransmissionarerelevantfactorsindetermining
CommunicationsCommissionvPacifica
whethertoinvokesanctions."[W]hentheCommissionfindsthatapighasenteredtheparlor,theexerciseof
Foundation.html
itsregulatorypowerdoesnotdependonproofthatthepigisobscene."
Yes.Inan81opinion,theCourtoverruledtheCourtofAppealsofNewYorkandheldthattheNewYork's
CentralHudsonGas&Electric
Corp.v.PublicServiceCommission banviolatedtherighttocommercialspeech.Writingforthemajority,JusticeLewisF.Powellcitedthe
ofNewYork,447U.S.557(1980) protectionsfor"commercialspeechfromunwarrantedgovernmentalregulation"setforthinVirginia
PharmacyBoardv.VirginiaCitizensConsumerCouncil.TheCourtrecognizedNewYork'sinterestin
1979/1979/1979_79_565
promotingenergyconservationandacceptedthatthePSC'sregulationwoulddirectlyfurtherthatinterest.
However,sincetheregulationrestrictedallpromotionaladvertisingregardlessofitseffectonelectricityuse,
itviolatedtheFirstandFourteenthAmendmentunderFirstNationalBankofBostonv.Bellotti.Justices
WilliamJ.Brennan,Jr.,HarryA.Blackmun,andJohnPaulStevenseachwroteopinionsconcurringinpartand
inthejudgment
Wooleyv.Maynard,430U.S.705
(1977)
1979/1975/1975_74_773
Hudgensv.NLRB,424U.S.507
(1976)
1979/1975/1975_74_895
Case
VirginiaPharmacyBd.v.Virginia
ConsumerCouncil,425U.S.748
(1976)
TeachersChart
39.
38.
37.
36.
35.
34.
54
1989/1983/1983_82_1998
Clarkv.C.C.N.V.,468U.S.288
(1984)
1989/1982/1982_81_1251
Connickv.Myers,461U.S.138
(1983)
1989/1981/1981_80_2043
BoardOfEducationv.Pico,457
U.S.853(1982)
1989/1981/1981_81_55
NewYorkv.Ferber,458U.S.747
(1982)
1979/1979/1979_79_243
Yes.Althoughschoolboardshaveavestedinterestinpromotingrespectforsocial,moral,andpolitical
communityvalues,theirdiscretionarypowerissecondarytothetranscendentimperativesoftheFirst
Amendment.TheCourt,ina5to4decision,heldthatascentersforvoluntaryinquiryandthedissemination
ofinformationandideas,schoollibrariesenjoyaspecialaffinitywiththerightsoffreespeechandpress.
Therefore,theBoardcouldnotrestricttheavailabilityofbooksinitslibrariessimplybecauseitsmembers
disagreedwiththeirideacontent.
TheU.S.SupremeCourtsaysthatanassistantdistrictattorney'sfreespeechrightwasnotviolatedwhenshe
wasfiredfordistributingaquestionnaireaboutinternalofficepracticestofellowprosecutors.Atleastone
ofMyers'questionsrelatedtoamatterofpublicconcern:whetherassistantprosecutorsfeltpressuredto
workinpoliticalcampaigns.But,relyingonits1968Pickeringruling,theCourtdecidesthattheemployer's
interestinadisruptionfreeworkplaceoutweighstheemployee'srighttocommentonanissueofpublic
concern.
Ina7to2decision,theCourtheldthattheregulationsdidnotviolatetheFirstAmendment.TheCourt
notedthatexpressionissubjecttoreasonabletime,place,andmannerrestrictions,andthatthemannerof
theprotestwasatoddswiththegovernment'sinterestinmaintainingtheconditionoftheparks.TheCourt
arguedthattheParkServicedidnotattempttobanallsleepinginpublicparks(onlyincertainareas),and
thattheprotestershadalternativemeansofcommunicatingtheirmessage.
Ina7to1decision,theCourtheldthattherighttoattendcriminaltrialswas"implicitintheguaranteesof
theFirstAmendment."TheCourtheldthattheFirstAmendmentencompassednotonlytherighttospeak
butalsothefreedomtolistenandtoreceiveinformationandideas.TheCourtalsonotedthattheFirst
Amendmentguaranteedtherightofassemblyinpublicplacessuchascourthouses.TheCourtemphasized
that"certainunarticulatedrights"wereimplicitinenumeratedguaranteesandwereoften"indispensableto
theenjoymentofrightsexplicitlydefined."
No.IntheCourt'sfirstexaminationofastatutespecificallytargetedagainstchildpornography,itfoundthat
thestate'sinterestinpreventingsexualexploitationofminorswasacompelling"governmentobjectiveof
surpassingimportance."Thelawwascarefullydrawntoprotectchildrenfromthemental,physical,and
sexualabuseassociatedwithpornographywhilenotviolatingtheFirstAmendment.
RichmondNewspapersInc.v.
Virginia,448U.S.555(1980)
1979/1979/1979_79_289
MajorityOpinion
Yes.SincetheCaliforniaConstitutionprotected"speechandpetitioning,reasonablyexercised,inshopping
centersevenwhentheshoppingcentersareprivatelyowned,"PruneYardcouldnotpreventthestudents
fromsolicitingonitsproperty.TheCourtarguedthatitwaswithinCalifornia'spowertoguaranteethis
expansivefreespeechrightsinceitdidnotunreasonablyintrudeontherightsofprivatepropertyowners
Page7of13
Expressionissubject
toreasonabletime,
place,andmanner
restrictions.
Publicemployeesfree
speechrightdefined.
Schoolboardcannot
banlibrarybooks.
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Statehadthepower
toguaranteethis
expansivefreespeech
rightsinceitdidnt
intrudeontherights
ofprivateproperty
owners.
FirstAmendment
encompassednotonly
therighttospeakbut
alsothefreedomto
listenandtoreceive
informationandideas.
Childpornnot
protected.
beforeusing.
Case
PruneYardShoppingCenterv.
Robins,447U.S.74(1980)
TeachersChart
44.
43.
42.
41.
40.
55
1999/1990/1990_89_1799
Massonv.NewYorkerMagazine,
Inc.,501U.S.496(1991)
No.Ina90vote,theCourtruledthattheFirstAmendmentsfreeexpressionclausecould notprotectthe
distortionsinMalcolmsarticle.JusticeAnthonyKennedy'smajorityopinionalsoexplainedwhenadirect
quotationcanbeconsideredfalse,andthereforepotentiallylibelous.TheFirstAmendmentlimitslibelsuits
bypublicfigures.Areportaboutapublicfigurecannotbeconsidered"false"unlessitisagrossdistortionof
thetruth.Kennedy'sopinionexplainedthatadirectquotationwillqualifyassuchadistortionifthequoted
wordsdifferintheirfactualmeaningfromanythingthepublicfigurereallysaid.Malcolmsfabrication
qualifiedasa"grossdistortion,"andtheCourtgrantedMassonstandingtosue.
Page8of13
Flagprotectionact
unconstitutional
righttofree
expressionsupersedes
protectoftheflagasa
nationalsymbol.
TheFirst
Amendmentsfree
expressionclausedoes
notprotectintentional
fabricationsoftruth
byapublication.
Flagburningprotected
symbolicspeech.
Allowsschoolsto
censortheir
publications.
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Itwasappropriatefor
theschooltoprohibit
theuseofvulgarand
offensivelanguage.
beforeusing.
MajorityOpinion
No.TheCourtfoundthatitwasappropriatefortheschooltoprohibittheuseofvulgarandoffensive
language.ChiefJusticeWarrenBurgerdistinguishedbetweenpoliticalspeech,whichtheCourtpreviously
hadprotectedinTinkerv.DesMoinesIndependentCommunitySchoolDistrict(1969),andthesupposed
1989/1985/1985_84_1667
sexualcontentofFraser'smessageattheassembly.BurgerconcludedthattheFirstAmendmentdidnot
prohibitschoolsfromprohibitingvulgarandlewdspeechsincesuchdiscoursewasinconsistentwiththe
"fundamentalvaluesofpublicschooleducation."
HazelwoodSchoolDistrictv.
No.Ina5to3decision,theCourtheldthattheFirstAmendmentdidnotrequireschoolstoaffirmatively
Kuhlmeier,484U.S.260(1988)
promoteparticulartypesofstudentspeech.TheCourtheldthatschoolsmustbeabletosethighstandards
forstudentspeechdisseminatedundertheirauspices,andthatschoolsretainedtherighttorefuseto
1989/1987/1987_86_836
sponsorspeechthatwas"inconsistentwith'thesharedvaluesofacivilizedsocialorder.'"Educatorsdidnot
offendtheFirstAmendmentbyexercisingeditorialcontroloverthecontentofstudentspeechsolongas
theiractionswere"reasonablyrelatedtolegitimatepedagogicalconcerns."Theactionsoftheprincipal,the
Courtheld,metthistest.
Texasv.Johnson,491U.S.397
Ina5to4decision,theCourtheldthatJohnson'sburningofaflagwasprotectedexpressionundertheFirst
(1989)
Amendment.TheCourtfoundthatJohnson'sactionsfellintothecategoryofexpressiveconductandhada
distinctivelypoliticalnature.Thefactthatanaudiencetakesoffensetocertainideasorexpression,theCourt
1989/1988/1988_88_155
found,doesnotjustifyprohibitionsofspeech.TheCourtalsoheldthatstateofficialsdidnothavethe
authoritytodesignatesymbolstobeusedtocommunicateonlylimitedsetsofmessages,notingthat"[i]f
thereisabedrockprincipleunderlyingtheFirstAmendment,itisthattheGovernmentmaynotprohibitthe
expressionofanideasimplybecausesocietyfindstheideaitselfoffensiveordisagreeable."
UnitedStatesv.Eichman,496U.S. Ina5to4decision,comingontheheelsofasimilarholdinginTexasv.Johnson (1989),theCourtstruck
310(1990)
downthelawbecause"itsassertedinterestisrelatedtothesuppressionoffreeexpressionandconcerned
withthecontentofsuchexpression."Allowingtheflagtobeburnedinadisposalceremonybutprohibiting
1989/1989/1989_89_1433
protestersfromsettingitablazeatapoliticalprotestmadethatclear,arguedJusticeWilliamBrennaninone
ofhisfinalopinions.
Case
BethelSchoolDistrictNo.403v.
Fraser,478U.S.675(1986)
TeachersChart
48.
47.
46.
45.
56
1999/1996/1996_95_1065
Schenckv.ProChoiceNetworkof
WesternNewYork,519U.S.357
(1997)
1999/1992/1992_91_2024
Lamb'sChapelv.CenterMoriches
SchoolDistrict,508U.S.384
(1993)
http://law.jrank.org/pages/12681/RVv
CityStPaul.html
R.A.V.v.St.Paul,505U.S.377
(1992)
1999/1991/1991_90_1059
Case
Simon&Schusterv.NYCrime
VictimsBoard,502U.S.105
(1991)
TeachersChart
Yes,byaunanimousvote.TheSupremeCourt'sholdingconsistedoftwoparts.First,theDistrictviolated
freedomofspeechbyrefusingtheChapel'srequesttoshowmoviesonschoolpremisessolelybecausesuch
movieswerereligiouslyoriented.WhilenonpublicschoolsarepermittedunderNewYorklawtorestrict
accesstotheirpremisesbasedonsubjectmatterorspeakeridentity,suchrestrictionsmustbereasonable
and"viewpointneutral."Inthiscase,theDistrict'srestrictionwasneitherreasonablenorviewpointneutral,
sinceitallowedthepresentationofallotherviewsaboutfamilyvaluesandchildrearingexceptthose
whichwerepresentedfromareligiousperspective.Second,agrantofpermissiontotheChapeltousethe
District'spremiseswouldnothaveamountedtoanestablishmentofreligion.Thisisbecausetheshowingof
thefilmswouldneitherbeschoolsponsoredduringschoolhoursnorclosedtothepublic.
TheCourtheldthatwhilethe"fixedbufferzones"wereconstitutional,the"floatingbufferzones"werenot.
Itdistinguishedbetweenthetwotypesof"bufferzones."TheCourtsupportedthe"fixedbufferzones"
becausetheyprotectedthegovernment'sinterestinpublicsafety,bypreventingprotestersfromengaging
inunlawfulconduct(i.e.spittingonandshoutinginclinicusers'faces,blockingdoorways),whilestill
allowingthemtobeheardfromashortdistance."Floatingbufferzones,"bycontrast,werestruckdownby
theCourtsincetheyimposedagreaterburdenonfreespeechthanwasrequiredtoprotectthe
government'sinterestinpublicsafetyandfreetrafficflow.TheCourtfoundthatforcingdemonstratorsto
remainatleast15feetawayfromthepeopletheywishedtocommunicatewithwouldcreateaninordinate
amountofdangerousconfusionandcongestion.
Page9of13
Punishingcertain
conductonlybecause
oftheideasbehindit
violatestheFirst
Amendment.
Religiousviewson
certaintopicscannot
bedenied
presentationwhen
otherviewsonthe
sametopicsare
allowed,thusa
viewpointneutral
positionismaintained.
Floatingbuffer
zonesrisksilencingthe
protestersinapublic
forum.
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Lawoverturned
becauseitshowed
unjustified
discrimination.
beforeusing.
MajorityOpinion
Yes.TheCourtconcludedthat"NewYorkhassingledoutspeechonaparticularsubjectforafinancial
burdenthatitplacesonnootherspeechandnootherincome."Thisdiscriminationcouldonlybejustifiedif
thestatecouldshow"thatitsregulationisnecessarytoserveacompellingstateinterestandisnarrowly
drawntoachievethatend"(ArkansasWriters'Project,Inc.v.Ragland,481U.S.221,231(1987)).TheBoard
failedtoexplainwhyvictims'compensationhadtocomefromthecriminals'storytellingratherthanother
assets.
Yes.Ina9to0vote,thejusticesheldtheordinanceinvalidonitsfacebecause"itprohibitsotherwise
permittedspeechsolelyonthebasisofthesubjectsthespeechaddresses."TheFirstAmendmentprevents
governmentfrompunishingspeechandexpressiveconductbecauseitdisapprovesoftheideasexpressed.
52.
51.
50.
49.
57
1999/1999/1999_98_1856
Hillv.Colorado,530U.S.703
(2000)
No.Ina63decision deliveredbyJusticeJohnPaulStevens,theCourtheldthattheColoradostatute's
restrictionsonspeechrelatedconductareconstitutional.TheCourtconcludedthatthestatute"isnota
regulationofspeech.Rather,itisaregulationoftheplaceswheresomespeechmayoccur.""Althoughthe
statuteprohibitsspeakersfromapproachingunwillinglisteners,itdoesnotrequireastandingspeakerto
moveawayfromanyonepassingby.Nordoesitplaceanyrestrictiononthecontentofanymessagethat
anyonemaywishtocommunicatetoanyoneelse,eitherinsideoroutsidetheregulatedareas.Itdoes,
however,makeitmoredifficulttogiveunwantedadvice,particularlyintheformofahandbillorleaflet,to
personsenteringorleavingmedicalfacilities,"StevenswrotefortheCourt."Theunwillinglistener'sinterest
inavoidingunwantedcommunicationhasbeenrepeatedlyidentifiedinourcases."
Page10of13
Differentiatespublic
andprivateforums:
Publicbroadcasters
couldselectively
excludeparticipants
fromtheirsponsored
debates,solongas
thesewerenot
designedas"public
forums."
Duetothesmallsize
ofthebufferzone,
protesterscanstill
exercisetheirfree
speechright.
Decencytestonarts
grantsupheld.
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Freespeechon
Internetbacked.
beforeusing.
Case
MajorityOpinion
Renov.ACLU,521U.S.844(1997) Yes.TheCourtheldthattheActviolatedtheFirstAmendmentbecauseitsregulationsamountedtoa
contentbasedblanketrestrictionoffreespeech.TheActfailedtoclearlydefine"indecent"communications,
1999/1996/1996_96_511
limititsrestrictionstoparticulartimesorindividuals(byshowingthatitwouldnotimpactonadults),
providesupportivestatementsfromanauthorityontheuniquenatureofInternetcommunications,or
conclusivelydemonstratethatthetransmissionof"offensive"materialisdevoidofanysocialvalue.The
CourtaddedthatsincetheFirstAmendmentdistinguishesbetween"indecent"and"obscene"sexual
expressions,protectingonlytheformer,theActcouldbesavedfromfacialoverbreadthchallengesifit
droppedthewords"orindecent"fromitstext.TheCourtrefusedtoaddressanyFifthAmendmentissues.
NationalEndowmentfortheArts No.Inan8to1decision, theCourtheldthat,unlikedirectsovereignregulationofspeech,Congressenjoys
v.Finley,524U.S.569(1998)
widelatitudewhensettingspendingprioritiesthatmayindirectlyaffectcertainformsofexpression.The
fundingofoneactivitybelievedtobeinthepublicinterest,totheexclusionofanother,doesnotconstitute
1999/1997/1997_97_371
viewpointdiscrimination.Moreover,thestatutoryfundingguidelineswerenotimpermissiblyvaguesince
theyinvolvedselectivesubsidiesratherthancriminalorregulatoryprohibitions.TheCourtnotedthatwhile
theamendedregulationsmayaddsomemeasureofimprecisiontotheexistingguidelines,theydosotoan
alreadyhighlysubjectiveselectionprocess,madesobytheinevitablenatureofthesubjectmatterwith
whichitdeals.
ArkansasEd.TelevisionComm.v. No.Ina6to3decision,theCourtheldthatpublicbroadcasterscouldselectivelyexcludeparticipantsfrom
Forbes,523U.S.666(1998)
theirsponsoreddebates,solongasthesewerenotdesignedas"publicforums."TheCourtfoundthatby
reservingparticipationrightsonlytocandidatesforaparticularcongressionaldistrict,ratherthanhostingan
1999/1997/1997_96_779
openmicrophoneformat,andselectingamongthosewhichwereeligibletoparticipate,basedonobjective
indicationsoftheirpopularsupportratherthantheirviewpoints,AETC'sdebatewasa"nonpublicforum."
Assuch,AETCcoulddecidewhoshouldandshouldnotparticipateinitssponsoredevent.
TeachersChart
56.
55.
54.
53.
58
2009/2001/2001_01_521
RepublicanPartyofMinnesotav.
White,536U.S.765(2002)
2009/2001/2001_00_795
Ashcroftv.FreeSpeechCoalition,
535U.S.234(2002)
2009/2001/2001_00_1249
Thomasv.ChicagoParkDistrict,
534U.S.316(2002)
1999/1999/1999_99_699
Case
BoyScoutsofAmericav.Dale,
530U.S.640(2000)
TeachersChart
Page11of13
Yes.Ina63decision deliveredbyJusticeAnthonyM.Kennedy,theCourtheldthatthetwoprohibitions
describedaboveareoverbroadandunconstitutional.TheCourtfoundtheCPPAtobeinconsistentwith
MillerinsofarastheCPPAcannotbereadtoprohibitobscenity,becauseitlackstherequiredlinkbetween
itsprohibitionsandtheaffronttocommunitystandardsprohibitedbytheobscenitydefinition.Moreover,
theCourtfoundtheCPPAtohavenosupportinFerbersincetheCPPAprohibitsspeechthatrecordsno
crimeandcreatesnovictimsbyitsproduction.ProvisionsoftheCPPAcover"materialsbeyondthe
categoriesrecognizedinFerberandMiller,andthereasonstheGovernmentoffersinsupportoflimitingthe
freedomofspeechhavenojustificationinourprecedentsorinthelawoftheFirstAmendment"andabridge
"thefreedomtoengageinasubstantialamountoflawfulspeech,"wroteKennedy.
No.Ina54opiniondeliveredbyJusticeAntoninScalia,theCourtheldthattheannounceclauseviolatesthe Judicialcandidatescan
FirstAmendment.TheCourtreasonedthattheannounceclauseprohibitsspeechbasedonitscontentand
expresstheirviews.
burdensacategoryofspeechthatisatthecoreofFirstAmendmentfreedomsspeechaboutthe
qualificationsofcandidatesforpublicoffice.Moreover,theCourtconcludedthattheclausedidnotserveto
preservethestatejudiciary'simpartiality,itsarguedcompellingstateinterest."Thereisanobvioustension
betweenthearticleofMinnesota'spopularlyapprovedConstitutionwhichprovidesthatjudgesshallbe
elected,andtheMinnesotaSupremeCourt'sannounceclausewhichplacesmostsubjectsofinteresttothe
votersofflimits,"wroteScalia.
Thelicensingscheme
wasbasedoncontent
neutraltime,place,
andmannerregulation
oftheuseofapublic
forum,makingthe
ordinance
constitutional.
Lawsmustbewritten
sotheycanbe
interpretedclearlyand
precisely.Overbroad
descriptionscould
resultinbansof
unintendedmaterials.
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Righttoexpressive
association.
beforeusing.
MajorityOpinion
Yes.Ina54opiniondeliveredbyChiefJusticeWilliamH.Rehnquist,theCourtheldthat"applyingNew
Jersey'spublicaccommodationslawtorequiretheBoyScoutstoadmitDaleviolatestheBoyScouts'First
Amendmentrightofexpressiveassociation."Ineffect,therulinggivestheBoyScoutsofAmericaa
constitutionalrighttobarhomosexualsfromservingastroopleaders.RehnquistwrotefortheCourtthat,
"[t]heBoyScoutsassertsthathomosexualconductisinconsistentwiththevaluesitseekstoinstill,"andthat
agaytroopleader'spresence"would,attheveryleast,forcetheorganizationtosendamessage,bothto
theyoungmembersandtheworld,thattheBoyScoutsacceptshomosexualconductasalegitimateformof
behavior."
No.Inaunanimousdecision deliveredbyJusticeAntoninScalia,theCourtheldthattheFirstAmendment
freespeechguaranteedoesnotrequiretheParkDistricttoinitiatelitigationeverytimetheagencydenieda
permitforaneventorspecifyadeadlineforjudicialreviewofachallengetothedenialofapermit.The
Courtreasonedthatthelicensingschemewasnotbasedonsubjectmattercensorship,butrathercontent
neutraltime,place,andmannerregulationoftheuseofapublicforumthusmakingtheordinance
constitutional."Onbalance,wethinkthepermissivenatureoftheordinancefurthers,ratherthanconstricts,
freespeech,"wroteScaliafortheCourt.
60.
59.
58.
57.
59
2009/2005/2005_04_1152
Rumsfeldv.ForumforAcademic
andInstitutionalRights(FAIR),
547U.S.___(2006)
2009/2003/2003_03_218
Ashcroftv.AmericanCivil
LibertiesUnion,542U.S.656
(2004)
2009/2002/2002_02_361
UnitedStatesv.AmericanLibrary
Association,539U.S.194(2003)
2009/2002/2002_01_1107
Case
Virginiav.Black,538U.S.343
(2003)
Page12of13
Differentiates
betweenregulating
conductand
regulatingspeech.
OverturnedChild
OnlineProtectionAct.
LawonlibraryInternet
filtersupheld.
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Languagethat
constitutesatrue
threatintentto
intimidatemaybe
banned.
beforeusing.
MajorityOpinion
Yes,butinapluralityopiniondeliveredbyJusticeSandraDayO'Connor,theCourtheldthatwhileaState,
consistentwiththeFirstAmendment,maybancrossburningcarriedoutwiththeintenttointimidate,in
whichfourotherjusticesjoined,theprovisionintheVirginiastatutetreatinganycrossburningasprima
facieevidenceofintenttointimidaterendersthestatuteunconstitutionalinitscurrentform,inwhichthree
otherjusticesjoined.JusticeAntoninScalialeftthelatterportionoftheCourt'sconclusiontoarguethatthe
CourtshouldvacateandremandthejudgmentoftheVirginiaSupremeCourtwithrespecttoElliottand
O'Mara,sothatthatcourtcouldhaveanopportunitytoconstruethecrossburningstatute'sprimafacie
evidenceprovision.JusticeDavidH.Souter,joinedbyJusticesAnthonyM.KennedyandRuthBader
Ginsburg,concludedthattheVirginiastatuteisunconstitutionalandthereforeconcurredintheCourt's
judgmentinsofarasitaffirmedtheinvalidationofBlack'sconviction.JusticeClarenceThomasdissented.
Yes.Ina63judgmentdeliveredbyChiefJusticeWilliamH.Rehnquist,theCourtheldthat,becausepublic
libraries'useofInternetfilteringsoftwaredoesnotviolatetheirpatrons'FirstAmendmentrights,CIPAdoes
notinducelibrariestoviolatetheConstitutionandisavalidexerciseofCongress'sspendingpower.Justices
SandraDayO'Connor,AntoninScalia,andClarenceThomasjoinedtheChiefJustice'sopinion.Justices
AnthonyM.KennedyandStephenG.Breyerfiledopinionsconcurringinthejudgment.BothnotedthatCIPA
imposedacomparativelysmallburdenonlibraryInternetusersthatwasnotdisproportionatetoany
potentialspeechrelatedharm,especiallyinlightofthelibraries'abilitytounblocksites.JusticesJohnPaul
StevensandDavidH.Souterdissented.JusticeRuthBaderGinsburgjoinedJusticeSouter'sdissent.
Yes.Inaninteresting5to4vote,withJusticesKennedy,Stevens,Souter,ThomasandGinsburgononeside
andChiefJusticeRehnquistandJusticesScalia,BreyerandO'Connorontheother,theCourtfoundthat
CongresshadnotyetmetitsburdentoshowthattheCOPArequirementsweremoreeffectivethanother
methodsofpreventingminors.JusticeAnthonyKennedy,inthemajorityopinion,wrotethatthedistrict
court'sinjunction"wasnotanabuseofdiscretion,becauseonthisrecordthereareanumberofplausible,
lessrestrictivealternativestothestatute."Themajorityalsoemphasizedthatbarringthestatute's
enforcementduringthetrialwouldbelessharmfulthanallowingit,becauseallowingitwouldbelikelyto
preventonlinepublishersfrompublishingcertainmaterial.
No.TheSupremeCourt,inaunanimousopinionwrittenbyChiefJusticeJohnRoberts,heldthatthe
SolomonAmendmentregulatedconduct,notspeech,andwasthereforeconstitutional.Includingmilitary
recruitersinreceptionsandinterviewsdoesnotnecessarilyindicateuniversityendorsementofthe
recruiters,sorequiringtheirinclusiondoesnotconstitutecompelledspeechinviolationoftheFirst
Amendment.
TeachersChart
2009/2008/2008_07_665
PleasantGroveCityv.Summum,
555U.S.___(2009)
2009/2006/2006_06_278
Case
Morsev.Frederick,551U.S.___
(2007)
SincePleasantGrove
Cityhadretainedfinal
authorityoverwhich
monumentswere
displayed,the
monuments
representedan
expressionofthecity's
viewpointsandthus
governmentspeech.
No.TheSupremeCourtreversedtheTenthCircuitholdingthattheplacementofamonumentinapublic
parkisaformofgovernmentspeechandthereforenotsubjecttoscrutinyundertheFreeSpeechClauseof
theFirstAmendment.WithJusticeSamuelA.AlitowritingforthemajorityandjoinedbyChiefJusticeJohn
G.RobertsandJusticesJohnPaulStevens,AntoninG.Scalia,AnthonyM.Kennedy,ClarenceThomas,Ruth
BaderGinsburg,andStephenG.Breyer,theCourtreasonedthatsincePleasantGroveCityhadretainedfinal
authorityoverwhichmonumentsweredisplayed,themonumentsrepresentedanexpressionofthecity's
viewpointsandthusgovernmentspeech.
Page13of13
FreeSpeechPrinciple
Schoolofficialscan
prohibitstudentsfrom
displayingmessages
thatpromoteillegal
druguse.Freespeech
rightsofstudentscan
berestricted.
beforeusing.
MajorityOpinion
TheCourtruledthatschoolofficialscanprohibitstudentsfromdisplayingmessagesthatpromoteillegal
druguse.ChiefJusticeJohnRoberts'smajorityopinionheldthatalthoughstudentsdohavesomerightto
politicalspeechevenwhileinschool,thisrightdoesnotextendtoprodrugmessagesthatmayundermine
theschool'simportantmissiontodiscouragedruguse.ThemajorityheldthatFrederick'smessage,though
"cryptic,"wasreasonablyinterpretedaspromotingmarijuanauseequivalentto"[Take]bonghits"or"bong
hits[areagoodthing]."InrulingforMorse,theCourtaffirmedthatthespeechrightsofpublicschool
studentsarenotasextensiveasthoseadultsnormallyenjoy,andthatthehighlyprotectivestandardsetby
Tinkerwouldnotalwaysbeapplied.
TeachersChart
Sources:
OYEZhttp://www.oyez.org/
JusticeLearning:FreeSpeechTimelinehttp://www.justicelearning.org/ViewIssue.aspx?IssueID=4
LawLibraryAmericanLawandLegalInformationhttp://law.jrank.org/
62.
61.
60
Answers
TenQuestions
Video:AConversationontheConstitution:FreedomofSpeech
SunnylandsSeminars,2009
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Whydoyouthinktheframersvaluedfreedomofspeech?
Itallowedonetospeakoutagainstthegovernmentwithoutfearofreprisal.
Whatconstitutesspeech?
Anyexpressionofideas,includingsymbolicspeech
Whyareallformsofexpressionimportantinademocracy?
JusticeKennedy:Itswhoweare.Wedefineourselvesbywhatwesay,whatweread,bywhatwe
think,whatwehear,bywhatwesing,bywhatwepray.Thisiswhoweare.Thisisourself
definition.Wedefineourselves;thegovernmentdoesnotdefineus.
Whydoyouthinktherearelimitstofreespeech?Inyouropinion,shouldtherebe?Why?
Answerswillvary.
Whydoyouthinkitssohardtodefinewhatspeechisprotectedandwhatisnot?
Answerswillvary.
Citethefundamentalprinciplethatisthestartingpointforalljudicialdecisionsrelatedtofree
speech.
Congressshallmakenolaw...abridgingthefreedomofspeech(FirstAmendment)
Listfactorsbroughtupbythejusticesinthevideoasonesthatcouldmatterwhenresolvingfree
speechdisputes.
Examplesinclude:
criticismofthegovernment
governmentinstitutions
politicalmatters
publicpark
personalbeliefs
personallocker
beliefsonsocietalmatters
daycarecenter
speechstirringupracialhatred
military
puttingpeopleinimmediatedanger
highschoolstudents
clearandpresentdanger
collegestudents
hatespeech
studentspeechagainstthecollege
symbolicspeech
protestatacollege
age18andover;3yearold
protestrightscollege,juniorhigh
placepublicschool,home,
votingage
publicorprivateforum
schooldiscipline
publicschool
speechathome
privateschool
8. TheConstitutiondoesnotdefinefreespeech.WhatdidJusticeBreyermeanwhenhesaid,So,
thatsleftuptothepeopletoworkout?Explainhowpeoplehelpdefinefreedomofspeechwhen
decisionsaremadebythecourt.
UndertheConstitution,itsthepeoplewhohavetheultimateresponsibilityandpowertoshapethe
governmentanddetermineitslaws.Bybringingfreespeechdisputestocourtforresolution,the
peoplerequestthecourttodecideifFirstAmendmentrightshavebeendenied.Thebodyof
collectivecourtdecisions,knownascaselaw,helpstodefinewhatfreedomofspeechmeansinthis
country.Andithaschangedfromtimetotime.
9. Whatdidyoulearnfromthejusticesabouttheprocessfordecidingfreespeechmatters?
Answerswillvary.
10. AccordingtoJusticeBreyer,whatistheworstthingyoucandobywayofabridgment?
Stopsomebodyfromtalkingsimplybecauseyoudontlikewhathesays.
61
National Civics and Government Standards
National Civics and Government Standards

Source Document:
National Standards for Civics and Government (1994) Center for Civic Education
62
Grades 5-8
Grades 9-12
NationalStandardsforCivicsandGovernment
Lesson:FreedomofSpeech:FindingtheLimits
Source:NationalStandardsforCivicsandGovernment(1994)CenterforCivicEducation
Grades58ContentStandardsAlignment
Thefollowingchartshowsamoregranularalignmentatthestandardslevel.
NationalStandardsforCivicsand
GovernmentGr.58
SpecificContentStandards
I.A.1.Definingciviclife,politics,and
government.Studentsshouldbeableto
explainthemeaningofthetermsciviclife,
politics,andgovernment.
I.A.2.Necessityandpurposesof
evaluate,take,anddefendpositionsonwhy
governmentisnecessaryandthepurposes
governmentshouldserve.
I.B.2.Theruleoflaw.Studentsshouldbeable
toexplaintheimportanceoftheruleoflaw
fortheprotectionofindividualrightsandthe
commongood.
Understandings ReinforcedbytheLesson
Servingonjuriesisaveryimportantwaythatordinarycitizens
participateinciviclife.Byservingonjuries,citizenshelpresolve
disputesinthecommunityandpunishthosewhobreakthelaw.
Thefederalcourts, whichmakeupthejudicialbranchofthe
federalgovernment,areresponsibleforinterpretingthelaw,
evaluatingtheconstitutionalityoffederallaws,andthepeaceful
resolutionoflegaldisputes.
Adherencetotheruleoflawbyallpartiesmakesitpossibleto
resolvelegaldisputespeacefullythroughthejudicialprocess.
Courtdecisionshelpensurethatthelawisinterpreted
consistentlyandappliedfairlyfortheprotectionofindividual
rightsandthecommongood.
I.C.2.Purposesandusesofconstitutions.
ItistheConstitutionthatdefinesthejudicialbranchof
Studentsshouldbeabletoexplainthevarious governmentandgivesitthepowertointerpretthelawsand
purposesconstitutionsserve.
resolvedisputes.
Asthesupremelawoftheland,theU.S.Constitutionprotects
individualrightsandpromotesthecommongood.
II.A.1.TheAmericanideaofconstitutional
ThePeoplearetheultimatesourceofthepowerinAmerican
constitutionalgovernment.
explaintheessentialideasofAmerican
constitutionalgovernment.
Freedomofspeechisarightdescribedguaranteedbythe
ConstitutionintheBillofRights
II.C.1.Americanidentity.Studentsshouldbe TheU.S.Constitutionidentifiesbasicvaluesandprinciplesthat
abletoexplaintheimportanceofshared
areAmericandistinctives.Theseincluderespectforindividual
politicalvaluesandprinciplestoAmerican
rights,justiceunderthelaw,andtherighttoliveinpeace.
society.
WhenAmericansgetinvolvedinthejudicialprocesstheyacton
thesesharedvaluesandprinciplesinwaysthatreinforceand
strengthenthem.
Page1of3
63
GovernmentGr.58
II.D.1.Fundamentalvaluesandprinciples.
Studentsshouldbeabletoexplainthe
meaningandimportanceofthefundamental
valuesandprinciplesofAmerican
constitutionaldemocracy.
III.E.1.TheplaceoflawinAmericansociety.
importanceoflawintheAmerican
constitutionalsystem.
III.E.3.Judicialprotectionoftherightsof
individuals.Studentsshouldbeableto
evaluate,take,anddefendpositionson
currentissuesregardingjudicialprotectionof
individualrights.
V.B.1.Personalrights.Studentsshouldbe
abletoevaluate,take,anddefendpositions
onissuesinvolvingpersonalrights.
V.B.2.Politicalrights.Studentsshouldbe
onissuesinvolvingpoliticalrights.
V.C.1.Personalresponsibilities.Students
shouldbeabletoevaluate,take,anddefend
positionsontheimportanceofpersonal
responsibilitiestotheindividualandto
society.
V.C.2.Civicresponsibilities.Studentsshould
beabletoevaluate,take,anddefend
positionsontheimportanceofcivic
responsibilitiestotheindividualandsociety.
V.D.1.Dispositionsthatenhancecitizen
effectivenessandpromotethehealthy
functioningofAmericanconstitutional
democracy.Studentsshouldbeableto
evaluate,take,anddefendpositionsonthe
importanceofcertaindispositionsortraitsof
charactertothemselvesandAmerican
constitutionaldemocracy.
Fundamentalvaluesand principlesexpressedintheU.S.
Constitutioninclude
individualrights(majorityandminorityrights)
justice
opennessandfreeinquiry
PrinciplesofAmericanconstitutionaldemocracyinclude
ruleoflaw
individualrights
Thecourtsmakedecisionsbasedontheruleoflaw.These
decisionsaremadetoprotectindividualrightsandpromotethe
commongood.
TheU.S.Constitutiontoensurejudicialfairnessandthe
protectionofindividualrights.
TheU.S.Constitutionprotectsfreedomofspeechasapersonal
right.
Freedomofspeechisimportantasapoliticalrightwhichallows
individualstocriticizethegovernmentwithoutfearof
punishment.
Everyoneinvolvedinthejudicialprocesshaspersonal
responsibilitiesasacitizentorespecttherightsandinterestsof
others.
TherearecivicresponsibilitiesassociatedwithbeinganAmerican
citizeninvolvedinthejudicialsystem.Theseinclude:
obeyingthelaw
respectingtherightsofothers
Courtsmayhelpwithproblemsolvinginaconstitutional
democracy,buttheextentoftheirsuccessdependsonall
participantsexercisingcertaindispositionsortraitsofcharacter
thatincluderespectfortherightsofotherindividuals.
Page2of3
64
GovernmentGr.58
V.E.1.Participationincivicandpoliticallife
andtheattainmentofindividualandpublic
goals.Studentsshouldbeabletoexplainthe
relationshipbetweenparticipatingincivicand
politicallifeandtheattainmentofindividual
andpublicgoals.
V.E.5.Knowledgeandparticipation.
importanceofknowledgetocompetentand
responsibleparticipationinAmerican
democracy.
Participationinthejudicialprocessisnotonlyawaytoresolve
currentdisputes,butawaytoaffectthewayoflifeforothersin
thefuture.
Aconstitutionaldemocracyrequirestheparticipationofan
attentive,knowledgeable,andcompetentcitizenry
Page3of3
65
Source:NationalStandardsforCivicsandGovernment(1994)CenterforCivicEducation
Grades912ContentStandardsAlignment
Thefollowingchartshowsamoregranularalignmentatthestandardslevel.
GovernmentGr.912
I.A.1.Definingciviclife,politics,and
explainthemeaningofthetermsciviclife,
politics,andgovernment.
I.A.2.Necessityofpoliticsandgovernment.
Studentsshouldbeabletoexplainthemajor
argumentsadvancedforthenecessityof
politicsandgovernment.
I.B.2.Theruleoflaw.Studentsshouldbeable
toevaluate,take,anddefendpositionsonthe
importanceoftheruleoflawandonthe
sources,purposes,andfunctionsoflaw.
I.B.4Therelationshipoflimitedgovernment
topoliticalandeconomicfreedom.Students
shouldbeabletoexplainandevaluate
competingideasregardingtherelationship
betweenpoliticalandeconomicfreedoms.
II.C.1.Americannationalidentityand
politicalculture.Studentsshouldbeableto
explaintheimportanceofsharedpoliticaland
civicbeliefsandvaluestothemaintenanceof
constitutionaldemocracyinanincreasingly
diverseAmericansociety.
II.D.3.Fundamentalvaluesandprinciples.
Studentsshouldbeabletoevaluate,take,and
defendpositionsonwhatthefundamental
valuesandprinciplesofAmericanpoliticallife
areandtheirimportancetothemaintenance
ofconstitutionaldemocracy.
66
UnderstandingsReinforcedbytheLesson
Interpretinglawsandresolvinglegaldisputesarethe
responsibilitiesofthejudicialbranchofgovernment.
TheformandfunctionofthegovernmentintheU.S.asdefined
bytheU.S.Constitutionhelpspeopleworkcollectivelyto
accomplishgoalsandsolveproblemstheycannotachieveontheir
own.
Adherencetotheruleoflawbyallpartiesmakesitpossibleto
resolvelegaldisputespeacefullythroughthejudicialprocess.
Freedomofspeechisapoliticalfreedomestablishedbythe
Constitution.
TheU.S.Constitutionidentifiesbasicvaluesandprinciplesthat
areAmericandistinctives.Theseincluderespectforthelaw,
protectionofindividualrights,andjusticeunderthelaw.
Thefollowingvaluesandprinciplesareimportantforthe judicial
processtoworkeffectively:
individualrights(majorityandminorityrights)
opennessandfreeinquiry
justice
PrinciplesfundamentaltoAmericanconstitutionaldemocracy
include
individualrights
ruleoflaw
Page1of3
GovernmentGr.912
III.B.1.Theinstitutionsofthenational
evaluate,take,anddefendpositionsonissues
regardingthepurposes,organization,and
functionsoftheinstitutionsofthenational
government.
III.D.1.TheplaceoflawinAmericansociety.
defendpositionsontheroleandimportance
oflawintheAmericanpoliticalsystem.
III.D.1.Judicialprotectionoftherightsof
individuals.Studentsshouldbeableto
evaluate,take,anddefendpositionson
currentissuesregardingthejudicial
protectionofindividualrights.
V.B.1.Personalrights.Studentsshouldbe
onissuesregardingpersonalrights.
V.B.2Politicalrights.Studentsshouldbeable
toevaluate,take,anddefendpositionson
issuesregardingpoliticalrights.
V.B.5.Scopeandlimitsofrights.Students
shouldbeabletoevaluate,take,anddefend
positionsonissuesregardingtheproper
scopeandlimitsofrights.
V.C.1.Personalresponsibilities.
defendpositionsonissuesregardingthe
personalresponsibilitiesofcitizensin
Americanconstitutionaldemocracy.
V.C.2.Civicresponsibilities.Studentsshould
beabletoevaluate,take,anddefend
positionsontheimportanceofcivic
responsibilitiestotheindividualandsociety.
Thecourtsystemispartofthejudicialbranchofgovernment.
Courtsmakedecisionsbasedontheruleoflawinordertoprotect
therightsofcitizensandpromotethecommongood.
TheConstitutionensures judicialfairnessandprotectionof
individualrights.
Adherencetotheruleoflawhelpssecurepersonalrightsin
Americanconstitutionaldemocracy.
Personalrightsinclude
freedomofthoughtandconscience
freedomofexpressionandassociation
Avigilantcitizenryhelpsprotectandsecuretheserightsfor
others.
Freedomofspeechisimportantasapoliticalrightwhichallows
individualstocriticizethegovernmentwithoutfearof
punishment.
Thescopeandlimitofrightsrelatedtofreedomofspeechare
definedbyprinciplesestablishedthroughSupremeCourt
decisionsandcaselaw.
Everyoneinvolvedinthejudicialprocesshaspersonal
responsibilitiesasacitizentorespecttherightsandinterestsof
others.
TherearecivicresponsibilitiesassociatedwithbeinganAmerican
citizeninvolvedinthejudicialsystemthatinclude:
obeyingthelaw
respectingtherightsofothers
Page2of3
67
GovernmentGr.912
V.D.2.Dispositionsthatfosterrespectfor
individualworthandhumandignity.
defendpositionsontheimportanceto
Americanconstitutionaldemocracyof
dispositionsthatfosterrespectforindividual
worthandhumandignity.
V.D.4.Dispositionsthatfacilitatethoughtful
andeffectiveparticipationinpublicaffairs.
defendpositionsontheimportanceto
Americanconstitutionaldemocracyof
dispositionsthatfacilitatethoughtfuland
effectiveparticipationinpublicaffairs.
V.E.1.Therelationshipbetweenpoliticsand
theattainmentofindividualandpublic
goals.Studentsshouldbeabletoevaluate,
takeanddefendpositionsontherelationship
betweenpoliticsandtheattainmentof
individualandpublicgoals
V.E.3.Formsofpoliticalparticipation.
defendpositionsaboutthemeansthat
citizensshouldusetomonitorandinfluence
theformationandimplementationofpublic
policy.
V.E.5.Knowledgeandparticipation.
importanceofknowledgetocompetentand
responsibleparticipationinAmerican
democracy.
Thosewithrespectforindividualworthandhumandignitytend
tohavethesedispositions:
Respectfortherightsandchoicesofindividualsholdingand
advocatingdifferingideas
Traitsthat facilitate thoughtfulandeffectiveparticipationin

publicaffairsinclude
respectfortherightsofotherindividuals
respectforlaw
toleranceofambiguity
Participationinthejudicialprocessisnotonlyawaytoresolve
currentdisputes,butawaytoaffectthewayoflifeforothersin
thefuture.
Studentswhoareknowledgeablecitizenscanseektopromote
individualrightsbyparticipatinginthejudicialprocess.
A constitutionaldemocracyrequirestheparticipationofan
attentive,knowledgeable,andcompetentcitizenry.
Page3of3
68

Free Speechless On Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Free Speechless On Plan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Free Speechless On Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Freedom of Speech:

Finding the Limits

Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of

Grades: Middle School; High School (Focus)

As part of the Bill of Rights, freedom of speech is guaranteed

Estimated Time: 3-4 days

When people bring their First Amendment challenges into

NOTES AND CONSIDERATIONS

Subject Focus: Civics/Government

Grades 9-12 Organizing Questions

I. What are civic life, politics, and government?

Analyze primary and secondary sources

Analyze information for trends and

Describe and recall information

2. Media literacy skills

Read, view, and listen to information

Write and speak clearly to contribute

Manage time and materials

Ask meaningful questions

Contribute to small and large group discussion

Sources for Definitions

Matters for Interpretation

DAY 1: Simple and Complicated

Also available online at

1. Review the wording in the First Amendment:

During and After Viewing:

Finish the Ten Questions.

DAYS 2-3: Simple and Complicated

Nature of content criteria

After student cases are

After student cases are

Time, place, manner

Nature of content criteria

Time, place, manner

Debate Internet speech issues raised in this article:

To suppress free speech is a double wrong.

Readings & Resources

Chapter 6: The Right to Freedom of Speech

ree speech is our most fundamentaland our most contestedright. It is

The free communication of

The RighT To FReedom oF Speech 57

The RighT To FReedom oF Speech 59

Restriction of free thought

The RighT To FReedom oF Speech 61

Free Trade in Ideas

in ideasthat the best test of truth is the power of

Malicious Words versus

or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for

The RighT To FReedom oF Speech 63

That this state having by its Convention, which

ommended an amendment for that purpose, which

States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of

The Constitution of the United States: First Amendment

First Amendment - The Meaning

Synopsis of Cases Referenced in Video

National Civics and Government Standards

National Civics and Government Standards

Traitsthat facilitate thoughtfulandeffectiveparticipationin