SC 7-1 that 1st amnd requires trials open to piblic, but no more than 3 justices agreed to an opinion (needed 5) --- plurality = draft with the most support

Terms that apply: plurality 

Gitlow v. New York

(1925)  

Gitlow published a Socialist Manifesto urging government overthrow -- convicted in NY

U.S. Supreme Court "assumed" that 1st Amendment rights (freedom of speech and press) are fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of 14th Amendment from impairment by the state

terms involved: incorporation 

Near v. Minnesota 

(1931)

Near published in his newspaper that practically every bad person was a JEW

Supreme Court rules Minnesota statue of prior restraint (in form of an injucntion) was unconstitutional b/c due process of 14th amendment 

terms cited: incorporation, injunction, censorship?

McIntyre v. OH Elections Commission

(1995)

OH law prohibited distribution of anonymous campaign literature "designed to influence voters"

 Supreme Ct. invalidated OH law using strict scrutiny-- it restricted a category of free speech (political speech) and was overbroad in terms of libel and fraud b/c those did not harm democratic process when presented in political speech

terms: strict scrutiny, content regulation (specifically subjet matter), overbreadth  

TX v. Johnson 

(1989)

TX law prohibited intentional descration of flag when caused "serious offense" 

S.C. said unconstitutional content regulation b/c limited political expression-- it posed no danger 

Terms: content regulation (subject matter) 

Snyder v. Phelps 

(2011)

picketers saying "God hates fags"-- picketers not visabe or audible; didn't disrupt 

S.C. said 1st amendment violated-- feared jurors imposed liability due to dislike of viewpoint being expressed 

Doe. v. University of Michigan 

(1989) 

University policy banned speech/ actions that "stigmatizes or victimizes" 

S.C. ruled unconst. for 2 reasons: 

1. vagueness -- "stigmatize and victimize are too general, don't give clear definition 

2. overbreadth-- prohibited disruptive/obscene speech as well as distasteful speech, both which are protected by 1st Amendment 

Schneck v. United States 

(1919)

Start of clear and present danger test 

Socialists convicted for circular draft containing "impassioned language" 

S.C. upheld conviction-- fliers were not political speech as much as they were interjections 

Abrams v. United States

(1919)

Russian aliens convicted for distributing fliers opposing dispatch of American troops to Russia 

S.C. said even if disagree with what is said, if it doesn't present danger then shouldn't be surpressed-- undefined harm at undefined time, like "death to Dr. Lee"

Dennis v. United States

(1951)

Dennis convicted of being member of communist party 

court upheld conviction applying version of clear and present danger test saying govt. need not wait to stop speech "until catalyst is added"

Yates v. United States

(1957)

conspiracy to advocate overthrow of government 

clear and present danger test applied more literally than ever--> clear and present danger could be found only if advocacy for direct illegal action 

S.C. said too far removed from immediate danger 

Brandenburg v. Ohio 

(1969)

still active precedent 

OH statue said speech punished only if incites lawless action

 KKK leader Brandenburg convicted by OH for telling of plans to march on congress on July 4th

S.C. overturned conviction bc statue permitted convictions for "mere advocacy" of illegal action at some distant time  

Chaplinsky v. NH

(1941)

originated fighting words doctrine 

convicted for calling marshal a "goddamned racketeer and a damned facist" 

S.C. said these were epithets likely to provoke average person to a physical retaliation-- so chaplinsky had no 1st amend. rights and had uttered fighting words 

Cohen v. CA

(1971)

city had ordinance making it illegal to burn corss on property if likely to arouse "anger, alarm or resentment in other on basis of race, color, creed, religion, or gender"

kid convicted for burning cross in black couple's yard 

S.C. said ordinance unconstitutional content regulation b/c can't impose regulations on speakers just for disfavored subject (race, religion, creed, etc) and permit others (political speech, union membership, homosexuality) 

VA v. Black 

(2003)

S.C. refused to add depictions of animal cruelty to unprotected speech 

statute to prosecute crush videos was overborad

St. Patrick's Day Parade - Veterans excluded gay pride marchers

FL code section said publiation must print a free reply by an attacked candidate -- Miami Herald refused to publish reply to criticism of Tornillo

U. VA bars funding for Christian publications , but not of other religious publications

Court strucl down MN judicial ethics code that prohibited judicial candidates from expressing views on ""disputed political or legal issues" 

S.C. said code unconstitutionally restricted content of core pf 1st Amendment freedoms-- speech about qualifications of candidates for public office and did not preserve impartiality  

Black wrist bands

"Bong hits for Jesus"

Pentagon Papers

USSC voted 6-3 that NYT could publish secret defense study

Issued per curiam opinion - papers could be published because government didn't meet its heavy burden of proof

Birmingham parade ordinance - city commissioner could deny permits considered harmful to public welfare, morale, etc

USSC: commission can't dispense/withhold permits according to own opinions (content based regulation) 

Ny licensing statute prohibited exhibition of sacrilegious films gave censorship powers to gov't officials

USSC motion pictures are important organs of public opinion - "capacity for evil" doesn't disqualify all motion pictures from 1st amnd protection

*most important S.C. discussion of 1st amnd and broadcasting 

Court said the physical limitations of the electromagnetic spectrum justify government licensing of broadcasters

No 1st Amnd right to broadcast

Free speech isn't violated

FRC's refusal to renew Shuler's license because of defamatory and racist broadcasts didn't violate 1st amnd

neither censorship nor previous restraint- He could continue his attacks on public officials in other forums

USSC: cable franchising process would be subject to constitutional scrutiny

Cable system operators have 1st amnd protection

Cities can't award exclusive franchises on the basis of assertions about the need to minimize the demands on public property (prohibits competition and creates risk that cable operator would be captive to city hall)

Reno v. ACLU 

(1997)

S.C. ruled that 1st Amendment fully protected internet 

S.C. rejected claims that internet had attributes justifying diminished constitutional protection-- internet not as "invasive" as radio or tv b/c do not "invade" individuals home unbidden

no physical attributes that justify licensing  

Grosjean v. American Press Co. 

S.C. said owners of newspapers not immune from "any ordinary forms of taxation for support of govt." but cannot be subjected to taxes "single in kind" that place restraint on press-- these kind would violate 14th Amendment  

Justice Southerland said discriminatory tax unconstitutional restraint on press b/c limited advertising revenue and restricted circulation 

S.C. upheld for first time constitutionality of imposing general business tax on one medium while exempting others 

S.C. ruled Arkansas coupld apply sales tax to cable tv and satellite services while exempting print media 

terms: content nuetral 

Struck down Son of Sam law that prevented criminals from profiting from the story of his crimes, (made them give $ to victims) 

Violated 1st amnd - Discouraged creation of protected expression

Was too broad & narrow

A West Virginia statute made it a crime for a newspaper to publish, without approval of juvenile court, the name of any youth charged as a juvenile offender

SC said that if a newspaper lawfully obtains truthful info about a matter of public significance then state officials may not constitutionally punish publication

Police officials accidentally gave name of a rape victim to a reporter

Receipt of this info was lawful

SC found need to prevent clutter to be insufficient to justify a ban on political signs on residential property

Ordinance that was blanket prohibition on signs-- a content-based restriction that abridged homeowners’ First Amendment rights. It was not a time, place and manner restriction because there was no viable substitute for this unique medium of expression

Most important in content-neutral methods

Court upheld military draft law prohibiting men from destroying or mutilating their draft cards

Didn't single out public protestors

Was content-neutral -- was adopted to allow gov't to raise armies quickly and efficiently

SC said law restricting camping in parks near the White House didn't violate the 1st Amnd rights of protestors

Ban on camping wasn't motivated by disagreement w/message

Gov't interest -- prserving park property

Court upheld NY ordinance requiring performers utilizing a stage area in Central Park use sound amplification equipment and a sound tech provided by city

Interest - not to disturb nearby residences