Term
| Tinker v Des Moines (1969), Summary |
|
Definition
Summary: Mary Beth Tinker participates in a Viet Nam war protest by wearing a black arm band to school. She was suspended.
|
|
|
Term
| Tinker v Des Moines (1969), opinion |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Tinker v Des Moines (1969), vote |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Tinker v Des Monies (1969), reasoning |
|
Definition
| the arm band is "pure speech" and is entitled to comprehenisve 1st ammendment protection. School officials did not prohibit all contoversial political symbols. The bands "neither inturrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others." |
|
|
Term
| Tinker v Des Moines (1969), holding |
|
Definition
| The Constitution does not permit officials of the State to deny the students their form of expression |
|
|
Term
| Tinker v Des Moines (1969), dissent |
|
Definition
| Justice Black: "I have never believed that any person has a right to give speeches or engage in demonstrations where he pleases, and when he pleases" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Government may not intervene with expression before the fact without extrodinary circumstances. ALCU lawers in Tinker v Des Moines fought (and won) Tinker's suspension under prior restraint and 1st amendment rights. |
|
|
Term
| Schenck v US (1919), summary |
|
Definition
| In 1917 Charles Schenck printed 15,000 pamphlets encouraging resistance to the draft. He was charged with violating the 1917 Espionage Act, he appealed on 1st ammendment grounds. |
|
|
Term
| Schenck v US (1919), opinion |
|
Definition
| delivered by Justice Holmes |
|
|
Term
| Schenck v US (1919), vote |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Schenck (1919), reasoning |
|
Definition
| The document would not have been sent if it wasn't intended to have an effect, do the effects created by these words present a clear and present danger that congress has a right to prevent? YES, when a nation is at war things that might be said in a time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and no court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right. |
|
|
Term
| Schenck v US (1919), holding |
|
Definition
Judgements upheld
PS Schenck runs for president in jail and gets a million votes |
|
|
Term
| Clear and Present Danger Test |
|
Definition
| Test established in Schenck v US in 1919: a test requiring the consideration of content and context of words and their consequences to determine their protection under the 1st amendment. Although this conviced Schenck, it was notable becuase it was favorable to expression rights while not stirring up congress. |
|
|
Term
| Abrams v US (1919), summary |
|
Definition
| The John Abrams and 4 others conviced of violating the Espionage Act of 1917 for publishing and distributing leaflets in English and Yiddish advocating a general strike and criticizing the government's decision to send troops into Russia |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| delivered by Justice Clarke |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Abrams v US (1919), reasoning |
|
Definition
Abrams v US moves away from the clear and present danger test established in Schenck v US and to a bad tendancy test which is more restrictive of speech.
"men must be held to have intended and be accountable for, the effecgts which their actions were likely to produce" |
|
|
Term
| Abrams v US (1919), holding |
|
Definition
| trial court sentencing upheld |
|
|
Term
| Abrams v US (1919), dissent |
|
Definition
| Justice Holmes the principle of free speech is always the same, regardless of wartime-- it should only be abridged if it produces and immediate danger...he calls the distribution a "silly leaflet" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Precedent set in Abrams v US (1919). The court sought to hold individuals accountable for the intended actions their words sought to bring about. This approach is derived from English common law-- it asks "do the words hav ea tendency to produce evil consequences" rather that "do the words bring an immediate and substantive evil?" |
|
|
Term
| Gitlow v New York (1925), summary |
|
Definition
| Gitlow was charged with violating New Yorks's criminal anarchy law for distributing leaflets dubbed "the Left Wing manifesto." Defense failed in lower court, Gitlow appeals. |
|
|
Term
| Gitlow v New York (1925), opinion |
|
Definition
| delivered by Justice Sanford |
|
|
Term
| Gitlow v New York (1925), vote |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Gitlow v New York (1925), reasoning |
|
Definition
The manifesto is not abstract doctrine and the state has a right to use police power to punish those who abuse the freedom of speech by utterences inimical to public welfare..."it cannot reasonably be requried to defer the adoption of measures for its own peace and safety until the revolutionary utterances lead to actual disturbances"
embraces bad tendancy test |
|
|
Term
| Gitlow v New York (1925), holding |
|
Definition
| judgement of the court of appeals is upheld, statuete not unconstitutional and has been applied constitutionally |
|
|
Term
| Gitlow v New York (1925), dissent |
|
Definition
Dynamic duo Justice Holmes and Justice Brandeis are at it again! They just wish everyone would revert to the clear and present danger test.
"every idea is incitement. it offeres itself for belief and if beleived it is acted on unless some other belief outweighs it or some failure of energy stifles the movement at its birth" |
|
|
Term
| preferred freedoms doctrine |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Dennis v US (1951), summary |
|
Definition
| 11 leaders of the National Board of the Communist Party were arrested under the Smith Act for comspiring to teach and advocate the overthrow of the government. They were sentenced to 5 years and a $10,000 fine each by the trial court. They appealed on free speech rights. |
|
|
Term
| Dennis v US (1951), opinion |
|
Definition
| delivered by Chief Justice Vinson |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Dennis v US (1951), reasoning |
|
Definition
Birth of the clear and probable danger test! The govenernment should not have to wait until danger is imminent before pursuing the palnners of revolution. "if a society cannot protect its very structure from armed internal attack, it must follow that no subordinate value can be protected."
Justice Leanred Hand quoted in reasoning: "in each case (courts) must ask whether the gravity of the 'evil', discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid the danger" |
|
|
Term
| Dennis v US (1951) holding |
|
Definition
| Smith Act does not violate the 1st Amendment and other provisions in the Bill of Rights |
|
|
Term
| Dennis v US (1951) dissent |
|
Definition
Justice Black: "no matter how it is worded this is a virulent form of prior censorship of speech and press, which I believe the 1st Amendment forbids"
Justice Black: free speech does a great service to society |
|
|
Term
| Clear and Probable Danger |
|
Definition
| Test born out of Dennis v US (1951) the court said that the "gravity" of an evil could be "discounted" by its improbability-- a sliding scale |
|
|
Term
| Brandenburg v Ohio (1969), summary |
|
Definition
| Ku Klux Klan leader Clarence Brandenburg made several statements insinuating that if the government continued to supress whites, "it's posible there might be some revengence taken...we are marching 450,000 strong..." He was arrested for violating Ohio Criminal Syndicalism law. |
|
|
Term
| Brandenburg v Ohio (1969), opinion |
|
Definition
| delivered per curiam (collectively) |
|
|
Term
| Brandenburg v Ohio (1969), vote |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Brandenburg v Ohio (1969), reasoning |
|
Definition
| punishing assembly with others is against the 1st and 14th ammendment...Whitney v California precedent is overruled in favor of reasoning in Dennis v US which requires probable danger. |
|
|
Term
| Brandenburg v Ohio (1969), holding |
|
Definition
| Ohio's Criminal Syndicalism statute is unconstitutional, Whitney v California precedent cannot be supported. |
|
|
Term
| Holder v Humanitarian Law Project (2012), summary |
|
Definition
| The Humanitarian Law Project is acused of knowingly providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, illegal under federal law becuase they are providing counseling and legal advice for groups deemed terrorist organizations to resolve their goals by peaceful means. |
|
|
Term
| Holder v Humanitarian Law Project (2012), opinion |
|
Definition
| delivered by Chief Justice Roberts |
|
|
Term
| Holder v Humanitarian Law Project (2012), vote |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Holder v Humanitarian Law Project (2012), reasoning |
|
Definition
"material support" is a valuable resource by definition and frees up resources for terrorist organizations to use for violent ends.
the court used an affadavit frmo thr State Department supporting this
precedents old and new make it clear that concerns of natinoal security do not warrant the abdication of the judicial role
preable..."provide for the common defense" |
|
|
Term
| Holder v Humanitarian Law Project (2012), holding |
|
Definition
| Statute is consistant within the limitations the 1st amendment |
|
|
Term
| Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942), summary |
|
Definition
| Jahova's Witness member Chaplinsky was selling biblical paphlets to an increasingly agitated crowd. When asked by the police to stop, he ignored, then when he refused a 2nd time and the police officer to him to "shut up you damn bastard" Chaplinky replied to the officer calling him a "damed fascist" and a "god damned racketeer"-- they then arrested him for offensive words to "any person lawfully on the street" |
|
|
Term
| Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942), opinion |
|
Definition
| delivered by Justice Murphy |
|
|
Term
| Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942), vote |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942), reasoning |
|
Definition
| this case lays the groundwork for fighting words, unprotected speech which when used in a public place, are likely to cause a breach of the peace..."such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to the truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality" |
|
|
Term
| Chaplinsky v New Hampshire (1942), holding |
|
Definition
| Chaplinsky's conviction was affirmed |
|
|
Term
| Cohen v California (1971), summary |
|
Definition
| Cohen wore a jacket which said "fuck the draft end the war" in the hallways of a courtroom. He removed it before entering the room, where the jedge was asked by a police officer to cite Cohen with contempt of court. When he refused, the officer nonetheless arrested him for disturbing the peace by engaging in offensive conduct. Cohen's municipal court affirmed his conviction, he appealed to the Supreme Court. |
|
|
Term
| Cohen v California (1971), opinion |
|
Definition
| delivered by Justice Harlan |
|
|
Term
| Cohen v California (1971), vote |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Cohen v California (1971), reasoning |
|
Definition
| the justices recognize Cohen's sweater as speech and not conduct. It cannot be construed as "fighting words" becuase it doesn't target an individual. Supressing ideas is dangerous-- let it out. |
|
|
Term
| Cohen v California (1971), holding |
|
Definition
| Judgement of the municpal court is reversed, Chaplinsky's conviction is overturned. |
|
|
Term
| Snyder v Phelps (2011), summary |
|
Definition
| Matthew Snyder died while serving in Iraq. His funeral was picketed by homophobes who notified local authorities and followed all of the rules. Snyder's father later field suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress among other things. He won in a federal district court, bu the decision was then reversed in the 4th circuit court of appeals. Snyder then appealed the Supreme Court. |
|
|
Term
| Snyder v Phelps (2011), opinion |
|
Definition
| delivered by Justice Roberts |
|
|
Term
| Snyder v Phelps (2011), vote |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Snyder v Phelps (2012), reasoning |
|
Definition
| issues were not refined social commentary, but they were discussing matters of public importance. "speech is powerful...we cannot react to the pain by punishing the speaker" |
|
|
Term
| Snyder v Phelps (2012), holding |
|
Definition
| The judgement of the United States Court of Appeals was affirmed. |
|
|
Term
| Roth v US (1957), summary |
|
Definition
| Samual Roth published and sold books, magazines, and photographs violating a federal obscenity law. |
|
|
Term
| Roth v US (1957), opinion |
|
Definition
| delivered by Justice Brennen |
|
|
Term
| Roth v US (1957), reasoning |
|
Definition
| obscenity is not protected by law-- the 1st ammendment was fashioned "to insure unfettered interchange of ideas" but obscenity is without redeemign social importance. The statute at stake does not offend constitutional safeguards. Birth of the Roth test: whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find the material obscene |
|
|
Term
| Roth v US (1957), holding |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Roth v US (1957), holding |
|
Definition
| the statute and it's application did not offend constitutional safeguards. Judgement is affirmed. |
|
|
Term
| Miller v CA (1973), summary |
|
Definition
| Miller, a vendor of adult material, conducts a mass mailing with samples of his work to some recipients that had not signed up for it. He was arrested. |
|
|
Term
| Miller v CA (1973), opinion |
|
Definition
| delivered by Justice Burger |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Miller v CA (1973), reasoning |
|
Definition
| Roth test was too lax, a move should be made back to "contemporary community standards" and not the standards of the nation at large. States should create concrete legislatureto ban "hard-core" porn. Showing that the material at stake is "utterly without redeeming social value" is not necessary-- they should have serious musical, artistic, political, or scientific value. |
|
|
Term
| Miller v CA (1973), holding |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| US v Alvarez (2012), summary |
|
Definition
| Xavier Alvarez introduced himself at a board meeting as the recipient of the Congretional Medal of Honor (a high ranking military honor) he was indicted under the Stolen Valor Act of 2005...the US Court of appeals disagreed, and the US government took him to the Supreme Court. |
|
|
Term
| US v Alvarez (2012), opinion |
|
Definition
| delivered by Justice Kennedy |
|
|
Term
| US v Alvarez (2012), vote |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| US v Alvarez (2012), reasoning |
|
Definition
| the government DOES have a compelling interest to protect the valor of the Medal of Honor, however the necessity of the Government's limitation on speech to achieve that end has not been shown. |
|
|
Term
| US v Alvarez (2012), holding |
|
Definition
| The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 is an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech |
|
|
Term
| RAV v St. Paul (1992), summary |
|
Definition
| Robert A. Viktoria and several teenagers made a crude cross and burned it in the fenced backyard of a black family. St Paul charged them under a biased-motivated crime ordinance. The trial court judge sided with RAV, then the court of appeals sided with St. Paul, finally the Supreme Court took the case. |
|
|
Term
| RAV v St. Paul (1992), opinion |
|
Definition
| delivered by Justice Scalia |
|
|
Term
| RAV v St. Paul (1992), vote |
|
Definition
|
|
