JJ Ryan, Harrison Smith, and Matthew Trasatti. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise.

JJ Ryan, Harrison Smith, and Matthew Trasatti

“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.”

The First AmendmentThe First Amendment

Schenck v. United States (1918) Schenck sent circulars to draftees during

WWII that suggested the draft was a “monstrous wrong” but only advised peaceful action as a response

He was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act and obstruction of recruitment

Outcome:◦ Schenck was charged guilty and was not protected

by the 1st Amendment◦ “During wartime, utterances tolerable in peacetime

can be punished”

The AG of Mass. Set up tough regulations on the sale and advertising of tobacco products.

Lorillard Tobacco Company claimed that under the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, they had the right to do so because they were taking all the necessary steps to be legally advertising there

Conclusion 5 votes for Lorillard Tobacco and 4 against.

During a republican Convention in Texas a man by the name of Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag.

The state of Texas fined Johnson $200,000 and sentenced him to one year in prison.

Johnson claimed that he could not be punished because he was expressing his freedom of speech

Result:◦ The Supreme Court ruled in the favor of Johnson

5:4 saying that he was expressing his freedom

The family of a deceased marine filed a lawsuit against the Westboro Baptist Church, who picketed at his funeral, with claims of invasion of privacy and emotional distress; the Church held signs like “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”

The family was awarded $5 million in damages but the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment shields those who stage a protest at the funeral of a military service member from liability

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UMP3AK5jwo

Video: Westboro Baptist Video: Westboro Baptist Leader Leader

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoon/display.cfm/96492/

During a school function where candidates were giving speeches for student government positions, Matthew Fraser gave a speech that was considered to be vulgar in context due to the sexual metaphors it entailed.

Fraser was suspended for two days and told that he would be unable to speak at graduation.

Fraser sued School district saying that he was expressing his freedom of speech.

Result: The court ruled 7:2 in the favor of the Bethel School District.

Gitlow v. New York (1922) Gitlow was distributing a “left-wing

manifesto” that called for socialism through strikes and class action

Gitlow claimed that since there was no resulting action from the manifesto the statute was incorrect

Outcome:◦ The defendant was found guilty due to the

possibility of danger to public security◦ This shows that a state may forbid both speech and

publication if it could result in action, such as riots, dangerous to public security

Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire (1941) Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, called a

city marshal a few obscene terms in a public place

He was convicted under the state law for violating a breach of the peace

Outcome:◦ Because Chaplinsky uttered “fighting words” he was

guilty◦ This shows that some forms of expression, such as

obscenity or “fighting words”, do not convey ideas and are not subject to 1st Amendment protection

Roth v. United States (1956) Roth operated a book selling business in

NY and was convicted of mailing obscene circulars and an obscene book in violation of federal obscenity statute

Outcome:◦The Court ruled in favor of the US holding

that the 1st Amendment was not intended to protect “every utterance of expression”

◦This shows that obscenity was not “within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press”

In the midst of the Vietnam War three teens John Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker, and Christopher Echardt decided to protest the War by wearing black armbands.

There school suspended the students and made it clear they were to not come back until they could do so without the armbands.

The tinkers sued the city of Des Moines saying that they were expressing their freedom of speech

Result:◦ The supreme court ruled in the favor of the Tinkers

saying by the power of the 1st Amendment they were allowed to wear the black armbands to school

Citizens United sought an injunction against the FEC in order to prevent the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) and its film Hillary: The Movie; which criticized Senator Hillary Clintons candidacy for president of the United States

The Supreme Court held that under the First Amendment, corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited, the film provided voters with “electorate information”; political speech is indispensable to a democracy

John McCain and Russell Feingold helped pass the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 which changed the way political parties can receive money.

The bill contained provision providing for an early federal trial and direct appeal to the Supreme court, by passing the typical federal judicial process.

Conclusion◦ 5 votes for McConnell, 4 against

R.A.V. V. St. Paul A few teenagers we said to have burned a cross on

a black families lawn. They were charged under the motivated criminal ordinance ◦ Doesn’t allow the display of symbols that may spark

anger or resentment in others, especially race, color, or religion

The teenagers said their freedom of speech was challenged

Result: The Supreme Court ruled Unanimously in the favor of R.A.V◦ The teenagers we expressing their freedom of speech

and this prevents the government from punishingthem

Brandenburg V. Ohio Brandenburg was a leader in the KK who was

convicted after giving a speech at a clan rally. The Ohio law claimed Brandenburg couldn’t give

a speech in a public area with the goal of criminal actions

Brandenburg claimed the state was violating his right to freedom of speech

Result: the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Brandenburg◦ They used a two-pronged test to evaluate

A student (Frederick) held up sign promoting drug use at a school-supervised event and was suspended

He alleged it violated the First Amendment; Tinker v. Des Moines was cited

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Morse (The Principal) stating that even though the message was “cryptic” Frederick’s sign promoted marijuana use

This showed that the highly protective standard set by Tinker would not always be applied

Board of Regents Univ. Wisconsin V. Southworth Public University that required student to pay an

Activity fee to support extracurricular. Scott Harold Southworth filed a lawsuit against the

U. claiming the fee violated his freedom of speech, association, and exercise in relation to the 1st Amendment because he was indirectly paying for others clubs who had view in which he did not agree

Result: The Supreme Court ruled Unanimously in favor of the Univ. f Wisc.◦ Public Univ. are allowed to charge an activity fee as

long as the viewpoint is neutral

Barry Black, Richard Elliott, and Jonathan O’Mara convicted of burning a cross which is against a Virginia statue.

All three pleaded on different terms. The Virginia Supreme Court said that the

cross burning statue is unconstitutional at face value.

Conclusion◦ 7 votes for Virginia, 2 votes against

http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/inquirer/20110916_A_digital_boost_for_free_speech.html

What do you think social media has done for the first amendment? How has it has a positive effect? Negative?

What can be done to educate the youth about their first amendment rights, especially in situations that involve digital media?

What are some examples of using Social media positively and negatively to exercise your first amendment rights?

Article on Free Speech in the Article on Free Speech in the Digital AgeDigital Age

Bib

BRANDENBURG v. OHIO. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 20 September 2011. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_492>.

R.A.V. v. ST. PAUL. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 19 September 2011. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_7675.

BOARD OF REGENTS UNIV. WISC. v. SOUTHWORTH. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 20 September 2011. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_98_1189>.

TEXAS v. JOHNSON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 19 September 2011. <http://beta.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_155>.

TINKER v. DES MOINES IND. COMM. SCHOOL DIST.. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 19 September 2011. <http://holmes.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21>.

BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 403 v. FRASER. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 16 September 2011. <http://beta.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1667>.