freedom of speech: finding the limitsfreedom of speech: finding the limits a lesson by linda weber...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Snapshot of LessonGrades: Middle School; High School (Focus)
Subject Focus: Civics/Government
Estimated Time: 3-4 days
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 O’Connon, and Anthony M. Kennedy: Free-dom of Speech, video available at: http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/a-conversation-on-the-constitution-freedom-of-speech
Computer with internet connection and projec-tor for class viewing.
Materials Included:Readings and Resources
• Chapter 6: “The Right to Freedom 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
Freedom of Speech:Finding the LimitsA Lesson by Linda Weber for Sunnylands Seminars 2009
SUMMARY “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . .” – First Amendment, U.S. Constitution
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 ap-plies the laws to resolve disputes.
When people bring their First Amendment challenges into the court system and decisions are made, principles get es-tablished 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 con-stitutes speech and where those limits should be. Consequent-ly, 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 deci-sions 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 Su-preme Court cases.
• Technology is relied on in this lesson to enhance learning by facilitating information access, and information gather-ing.
• 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.
www.annenbergclassroom.org
2
TOPICS• Constitutional foundations • Freedom of speech • Rights and responsibilities • Role of government • U.S. Supreme Court • Democratic principles
Document: National Standards for Civics and Government (1994) Center for Civic Educationhttp://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.
NATIONAL STANDARDS
3
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.
4
Knowledge, skills, and dispositions Students will . . .
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.
2. Media literacy skills Students will . . .
• Read, view, and listen to information delivered via different media formats in order to make inferences and gain meaning
3. Communication skills Students will . . .
• 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
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
6. Problem-solving skills Students will . . .
• Ask meaningful questions• Consider diverse perspectives• Support decisions with the facts• Explore alternative solutions
7. Participation skills Students will . . .
• 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.
STUDENT OUTCOMES
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.
5
ASSESSMENT
Evidence of understanding may be gathered from student performance related to the following:
1. Student activities2. Participation in small and large group discussions
VOCABULARY
• abridge—to diminish or reduce in scope.
• case law—law established by judicial decisions as distinguished from law created by legislation.
• freedom—the quality or state of being free: as the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.
• freedom of speech—the right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations.
• liberty—freedom from external (as governmental) restraint, compulsion, or interference in engaging in the pursuits or conduct of one’s choice to the extent that they are lawful and not harmful to others.
• rights—a person’s justifiable claim, protected by law, to act or be treated in a certain way.
• rule of law—the rule of law exists when a state’s constitution functions as the supreme law of the land, when the statutes enacted and enforced by the government invariably conform to the constitution.
• speech—forms of expression used to communicate an idea or a thought, not just in words.
Sources for DefinitionsFindLaw—Law Dictionaryhttp://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/
Annenberg Classroom Glossaryhttp://www.annenbergclassroom.org/terms
6
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 & 3Matters for InterpretationIn 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 4You DecideStudents analyze four free speech scenarios to decide what matters in light of the principles studied and have an opportu-nity to express their own points of view.
Overview:Students view a video from Sunnylands Seminars 2009 in which Supreme Court Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Ken-nedy and Sandra Day O’Connor 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.
Materials/Equipment Needed: • A Conversation on the Constitution with Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sandra Day O’Connon, 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 • “Synopsis of Cases Referenced in Video”
TEACHING ACTIVITIESDAY 1: Simple and Complicated
7
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 country…one 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 O’Connor)
• Texas v. Johnson (1989) (Flag burning case referred to by Justice Kennedy)
• Morse v. Frederick (2007) (Mentioned by Justice O’Connor)
• 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.
8
TEACHING ACTIVITIESDAYS 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.
Materials/Equipment Needed: • A Conversation on the Constitution with Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sandra Day O’Connon, 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”
• Activity: “Matters of Interpretation”
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.)
10
TEACHING ACTIVITIESDAY 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.
Materials/Equipment Needed: Student materials • Completed “Matters of Interpretation” • Completed Jigsaw Activity: “A Collection of Supreme Court Cases: Free Speech” • Activity: “Free Speech Scenarios to Decide”
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 don’t 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 con-stituted 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.”
11
EXTENSION ACTIVITIESHave 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
• Landmark Supreme Court Cases 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
24
• 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”
Student Materials
25
Video Follow‐Up
Ten Questions
Video: A Conversation on the Constitution: Freedom of Speech Sunnylands Seminars, 2009
1. Why do you think the framers valued freedom of speech?
2. What constitutes “speech”?
3. Why are all forms of expression important in a democracy?
4. Why do you think there are limits to free speech? In your opinion, should there be? Why?
5. Why do you think it’s so hard to define what speech is protected and what is not?
6. Cite the fundamental principle that is the starting point for all judicial decisions related to free speech.
7. List factors brought up by the justices in the video as ones that could matter when resolving free speech disputes.
8. The Constitution does not define free speech. What did Justice Breyer mean when he said, “So, that’s left up to the people to work out”? Explain how people help define freedom of speech when decisions are made by the court.
9. What did you learn from the justices about the process for deciding free speech matters?
10. According to Justice Breyer, what is “the worst thing you can do by way of abridgment”?
Video Follow-Up: Ten Questions
26
Jigsaw
Activity
A Collection of U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt Ca
ses: Freedo
m of S
peech
Page 1 of 1
8 Instructions: Re
view
the assigned
cases at the
links provided
to iden
tify the “D
ecision” (answer to
the “Q
uestion”) a
nd th
e “Free Speech Principle” it provides.
Also use the inform
ation provided
in th
e Timeline for Free
Spe
ech by
Justice Learning
at h
ttp://www.ju
sticelearning.org/View
Issue.aspx?Issue
ID=4
.
Backgrou
nd Facts
Que
stion
Case
Decision
Free
Spe
ech Principle
1.
During World W
ar I, Charles Schen
ck m
ailed circulars to draftees. The
circulars
suggested that th
e draft w
as a m
onstrous wrong
motivated
by the capitalist
system
. The
circulars urged
"Do no
t sub
mit to intim
idation" but advised
only
peaceful action such as pe
titioning
to rep
eal the
Con
scription Act. Schen
ck was
charged with
con
spiracy to violate th
e Espion
age Act by attempting to cause
insubo
rdination in th
e military and
to obstruct recruitm
ent.
Were Sche
nck's
actio
ns (w
ords,
expression
) protected
by
the free
spe
ech
clause of the
First
Amen
dmen
t?
Schenck v. United
States, 249
U.S. 47
(1919)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/190
1‐19
39/191
8/19
18_437
2.
The de
fend
ants were convicted on
the basis of tw
o leaflets th
ey printed
and
threw from
windo
ws of a building. One
leaflet signe
d "revolutionists" den
ounced
the send
ing of American
troo
ps to
Russia. The
secon
d leaflet, written
in Yiddish,
deno
unced the war and
U.S. efforts to
impe
de th
e Ru
ssian Re
volutio
n. The
de
fend
ants were charged and convicted for incitin
g resistance to
the war effort
and for urging
curtailm
ent o
f produ
ction of essen
tial w
ar m
aterial. They were
senten
ced to 20 years in prison.
Didthe am
endm
ents
to th
e Espion
age Act
or th
e application of
those am
endm
ents in
this case violate the
free
spe
ech clause of
the First A
men
dmen
t?
Abram
s v. United
States, 250
U.S. 616
(1919)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/190
1‐19
39/191
9/19
19_316
3.
Benjam
in Gitlow
, a socialist, was arrested for distribu
ting copies of a
"left‐w
ing
manife
sto" th
at called for the establishm
ent o
f socialism th
rough strikes and class
actio
n of any fo
rm. G
itlow
was con
victed
und
er a state crim
inal anarchy
law,
which pun
ishe
d advocatin
g the overthrow of the
governm
ent b
y force. At h
is trial,
Gitlow
argue
d that since th
ere was no resulting
action flo
wing from
the
manife
sto's pu
blication, th
e statute pe
nalized
utterances with
out p
rope
nsity
to
incitemen
t of con
crete actio
n. The
New
York courts had
decided
that anyon
e who
advocated the do
ctrine
of violent revolution violated
the law.
Was
the New
York law
punishing the
advocacy of
overthrowing the
governmen
t an
unconstitutional
violation of th
e free
speech clause of th
e First A
men
dmen
t?
Gitlow
v. N
ew York,
268 U.S. 652
(1925)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/190
1‐19
39/192
2/19
22_19
4.
Charlotte Anita W
hitney, a m
embe
r of the
Com
mun
ist Labor Party of C
alifo
rnia,
was prosecuted un
der that state's Criminal Syndicalism Act. The
Act prohibited
advocatin
g, te
aching, or aiding
the commission
of a
crime, includ
ing "terrorism
as
a means of accom
plishing
a change in indu
strial owne
rship. . .or effecting any
political change."
Didthe Crim
inal
Synd
icalism Act
violate the First o
r Fourteen
th
Amen
dmen
ts?
Whitney v.
California, 274
U.S.
357 (1927)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/190
1‐19
39/192
5/19
25_3
27
Jigsaw
Activity
A Collection of U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt Ca
ses: Freedo
m of S
peech
Page 2 of 1
8
Backgrou
nd Facts
Que
stion
Case
Decision
Free
Spe
ech Principle
5.
A 19‐year‐old m
embe
r of th
e Youn
g Co
mmun
ist League was con
victed
for
displaying
a red
flag as "an em
blem
of o
pposition
to th
e United States
governmen
t."
Dida California
statute that m
akes th
e display of a red
flag as
a statem
ent o
f “opp
osition
to
organized
governmen
t” violate
the First &
Fou
rteenth
Amen
dmen
ts?
Stromberg v. People
Of State Of
California, 283
U.S.
359 (1931)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/190
1‐19
39/193
0/19
30_584
6.
Byron Thornh
ill joined
a picket line that was protesting against h
is fo
rmer
employer. Sectio
n 3448
of A
labama state law m
ade it an
offen
se to
picket.
Pursuant to
the law, Tho
rnhill was arrested and fin
ed $100. Tho
rnhill, a union
presiden
t, was th
e on
ly picketer to be arrested
and
tried un
der the law.
Didthe Alabama law
violate Thornh
ill's
right to free
expression
und
er th
e First A
men
dmen
t?
Thornh
ill v.
Alaba
ma, 310
U.S.
88 (1
940)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/190
1‐19
39/193
9/19
39_514
7.
Jesse Cantwell and
his son
were Jeho
vah's Witn
esses; th
ey were proselytizing a
pred
ominantly
Catho
lic neighbo
rhoo
d in Con
necticut. The
Cantw
ells distributed
religious m
aterials by traveling do
or‐to‐do
or and
by approaching pe
ople on the
street. A
fter volun
tarily hearin
g an
anti‐R
oman
Catho
lic m
essage on the Cantwells'
portable pho
nograph, tw
o pe
destrians reacted angrily. The
Cantw
ells were
subseq
uently arrested for violating a local ordinance req
uiring
a permit for
solicita
tion and for incitin
g a breach of the
peace.
Didthe solicita
tion
statute or th
e "breach
of th
e pe
ace"
ordinance violate the
Cantwells' First
Amen
dmen
t free
speech or free
exercise rights?
Cantwell v. State of
Conn
ecticut , 310
U.S. 296
(1940)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/190
1‐19
39/193
9/19
39_632
8.
Lillian
and
William Gob
itis were expe
lled from
the pu
blic schoo
ls of M
inersville,
Penn
sylvania, for refusing to salute the flag as part o
f a daily schoo
l exercise. The
Gob
itis children were Jeho
vah's Witn
esses; th
ey believed that such a gesture of
respect for th
e flag was fo
rbidde
n by biblical com
mands.
Didthe mandatory
flag salute infringe
upon
libe
rties
protected by th
e First
and Fourteen
th
Amen
dmen
ts?
Minersville Scho
ol
District v. G
obitis,
310 U.S. 586
(1940)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/190
1‐19
39/193
9/19
39_690
9.
Walter Ch
aplinsky, a Je
hovah's Witn
ess, called a city m
arshal a "God
‐dam
ned
racketeer" and
"a damne
d fascist" in
a pub
lic place. H
e was arrested and
convicted un
der a state law fo
r violating a breach of the
peace.
Didthe application of
the statute violate
Chaplinsky's freedo
m
of spe
ech protected
by th
e First
Amen
dmen
t?
Chap
linsky v. State
of New
Ham
pshire,
315 U.S. 568
(1942)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/194
0‐19
49/194
1/19
41_255
28
Jigsaw
Activity
A Collection of U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt Ca
ses: Freedo
m of S
peech
Page 3 of 1
8
Backgrou
nd Facts
Que
stion
Case
Decision
Free
Spe
ech Principle
10.
The West V
irginia Bo
ard of Edu
catio
n requ
ired that th
e flag salute be part of the
program of activities in
all pu
blic schoo
ls. A
ll teache
rs and
pup
ils were requ
ired
to
hono
r the flag; refusal to
salute was treated as "insubo
rdination" and
was
punishable by expu
lsion and charges of delinqu
ency.
Didthecompu
lsory
flag salute fo
r pub
lic
scho
olchildren violate
the First A
men
dmen
t?
West V
irginia State
Board of Ed. v.
Barnette, 319
U.S.
624 (1943)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/194
0‐19
49/194
2/19
42_591
11.
Father Arthu
r Terminiello, in an
aud
itorium
in Chicago, delivered
a vitriolic spe
ech
in which he criticized variou
s po
litical and
racial group
s and viciou
sly cond
emne
d the protestin
g crow
d that had
gathe
red ou
tside the auditorium
. Policem
en
assigned
to th
e even
t were un
able to
prevent several disturbances by
the "angry
and turbulen
t" crowd. The
police arrested
Terminiello
for "breach of th
e pe
ace."
He was th
en tried and convicted for h
is central role in incitin
g a riot.
Didthe Ch
icago
ordinance violate
Term
iniello's right of
free
expression
guaranteed
by the
First A
men
dmen
t?
Term
iniello v.
Chicag
o, 337
U.S. 1
(1949)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/194
0‐19
49/194
8/19
48_272
12
In 1948, th
e leaders of th
e Co
mmun
ist P
arty of A
merica were arrested
and
charged with
violatin
g provisions of the
Smith
Act. The
Act m
ade it un
lawful to
know
ingly conspire to
teach and advocate th
e overthrow or de
struction of th
e U.S. governm
ent. Party leaders were foun
d guilty and lower cou
rts up
held th
e convictio
n.
Didthe Sm
ith Act's
restrictions on speech
violate the First
Amen
dmen
t?
Dennis v. United
States, 341 U.S. 494
(1951)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/195
0‐19
59/195
0/19
50_336
13.
Joseph
Beauh
arnais, preside
nt of W
hite Circle League
, Inc., was arrested on
Janu
ary 7, 1950, fo
r distribu
ting leaflets on Ch
icago street corne
rs. The
leaflets
called in part u
pon the mayor and
aldermen
of C
hicago
"to halt the
furthe
r en
croachmen
t, harassm
ent a
nd invasion
of w
hite peo
ple…
by th
e Negro."
Beauharnais was charged
with
violatin
g an
Illinois law m
aking it illegal to
distribu
te any pub
lication that "expo
ses the citizen
s of any
race, color, creed
or
religion to con
tempt, derision, or o
bloq
uy." A jury fo
und him guilty
, and
he was
fined
$200. The
Illinois Suprem
e Co
urt a
ffirmed
his con
viction.
Did Beauh
arnais'
convictio
n un
der the
Illinois statute violate
his constitutional right
to free
spe
ech un
der
the First a
nd
Fourteen
th
Amen
dmen
ts?
Beau
harnais v.
Illinois, 343
U.S. 250
(1952)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/195
0‐19
59/195
1/19
51_118
29
Jigsaw
Activity
A Collection of U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt Ca
ses: Freedo
m of S
peech
Page 4 of 1
8
Backgrou
nd Facts
Que
stion
Case
Decision
Free
Spe
ech Principle
14.
Samue
l Roth op
erated
a boo
k‐selling
business in New
York and was con
victed
of
mailing ob
scen
e circulars and an
obscene
boo
k in violatio
n of a fe
deral obscenity
statute. Roth's case was com
bine
d with
Alberts v. Califo
rnia, in which a Califo
rnia
obscen
ity law was challenged
by Alberts after his sim
ilar convictio
n for selling
lewd and ob
scen
e bo
oks in add
ition
to com
posing
and
pub
lishing
obscene
advertisem
ents fo
r his prod
ucts.
Did eith
er th
e fede
ral
or Califo
rnia's
obscen
ity restrictio
ns,
proh
ibiting
the sale or
transfer of o
bscene
materials th
rough the
mail, im
pinge up
on
the freedo
m of
expression
as
guaranteed
by the
First A
men
dmen
t?
Roth v. U
nited
States, 354
U.S. 476
(1957)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/195
0‐19
59/195
6/19
56_582
15.
Five African
Americans staged
a peaceful sit‐in at a
Lou
isiana
restaurant that
catered to both white and
black patrons. Whe
n the de
mon
strators sat at the
coun
ters whe
re only white persons were custom
arily served, th
ey were asked to
leave by
police officers. W
hen they refused
, the
y were arrested
charged
with
“disturbing the pe
ace” and
con
victed
.
Were the free
spe
ech
rights of the
de
mon
strators
denied
?
Garner v. Lou
isiana
, 368 U.S. 157
(1961)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/196
0‐19
69/196
1/19
61_26
16.
Decided
together with
Abernathy v. Sullivan
, this case con
cerns a full‐page ad in
the New
York Times th
at alleged that th
e arrest of the
Rev. M
artin
Luthe
r King
Jr.
for pe
rjury in Alabama was part o
f a cam
paign to destroy King's efforts to
integrate pu
blic facilities and en
courage blacks to
vote. L. B
. Sullivan, the
Mon
tgom
ery city com
mission
er, filed a libel action against the
new
spaper and
four black m
inisters who
were listed as end
orsers of the
ad, claim
ing that th
e allegatio
ns against th
e Mon
tgom
ery po
lice de
famed
him
personally. U
nder
Alabama law, Sullivan
did not have to prove th
at he had be
en harmed
; and
a
defense claiming that th
e ad
was truthful was unavailable since the ad
con
tained
factual errors. Sullivan
won
a $500,000 judgmen
t.
DidAlabama's libel
law, by no
t req
uiring
Sullivan to prove th
at
an advertisem
ent
person
ally harmed
him and
dismissing
the same as untruthful
due to factual errors,
unconstitutionally
infringe on the First
Amen
dmen
t's
freedo
m of spe
ech
and freedo
m of p
ress
protectio
ns?
New
York Times v.
Sullivan, 376
U.S.
254 (1964)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/196
0‐19
69/196
3/19
63_39
30
Jigsaw
Activity
A Collection of U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt Ca
ses: Freedo
m of S
peech
Page 5 of 1
8
Backgrou
nd Facts
Que
stion
Case
Decision
Free
Spe
ech Principle
17.
In 1952, th
ree escape
d convicts to
ok Ja
mes Hill, his wife
, and
their five children
hostage in th
eir Whitemarsh, Pen
nsylvania, hom
e. After nineteen ho
urs, th
e family was released un
harm
ed. The
con
victs were later appreh
ende
d in a violent
clash with
police du
ring which tw
o of th
em were killed. In
1953, Jo
seph
Hays
publishe
d a no
vel based
on the Hill family's ordeal. Whe
n the no
vel w
as
subseq
uently m
ade into a play, Life
Magazine ("Life") printed
an article abo
ut th
e play th
at m
irrored many of its inaccuracies con
cerning the Hill family's experience.
Alleging
that it deliberately misrepresen
ted his story, Hill sou
ght d
amages against
Life. O
n appe
al from
an adverse ruling, th
e App
ellate Division of th
e New
York
Suprem
e Co
urt rem
ande
d for a ne
w trial w
here a red
uced
adverse ru
ling was
impo
sed on
Life
. Following an
unsuccessful app
eal in the New
York Co
urt o
f App
eals, the
Sup
reme Co
urt g
ranted
Life
's owne
r, Tim
e Inc. ("Time") certio
rari.
Is a pub
lication,
containing
misrepresen
tatio
ns
abou
t the
sub
ject of
its coverage,
protected un
der the
First A
men
dmen
t's
freedo
m of spe
ech
guarantees?
Time Inc. v. H
ill, 385
U.S. 374
(1967)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/196
0‐19
69/196
5/19
65_22
18.
David O'Brien
burne
d his draft card at a Boston courthou
se. H
e said he was
expressing
his opp
osition
to war. H
e was con
victed
und
er a fe
deral law
that m
ade
the de
struction or m
utilatio
n of draft cards a crime.
Is th
e law an
unconstitutional
infringemen
t of
O'Brien
's freedo
m of
speech?
United States v.
O'Brie
n, 391
U.S.
367 (1968)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/196
0‐19
69/196
7/19
67_232
19.
A te
ache
r was fired for writin
g a letter to
the ne
wspaper criticizing ho
w m
oney
was divided
between athletics and academ
ics.
Was
the teache
r’s
right to free
spe
ech
violated
?
Pickering v. Boa
rd of
Education, 391
U.S.
563 (1968)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/196
0‐19
69/196
7/19
67_510
20.
John
Tinker, 15 years old, his sister Mary Be
th Tinker, 13 years old, and
Ch
ristop
her E
ckhardt, 16 years old, decided
along
with
their parents to protest th
e Vietnam W
ar by wearing
black arm
band
s to th
eir Des M
oine
s scho
ols du
ring the
Christmas holiday season. Upo
n learning
of the
ir intentions, and
fearing that th
e armband
s wou
ld provoke disturbances, th
e principals of the
Des M
oine
s scho
ol
district resolved that all stud
ents wearing
arm
band
s be
asked
to rem
ove them
or
face suspe
nsion. W
hen the Tinker siblings and
Christoph
er wore their armband
s to schoo
l, they were asked to rem
ove them
. Whe
n they refused
, the
y were
suspen
ded un
til after New
Year's Day.
Dida proh
ibition
against the
wearing
of
armband
s in pub
lic
scho
ol, as a form
of
symbo
lic protest,
violate the First
Amen
dmen
t's
freedo
m of spe
ech
protectio
ns?
Tinker v. D
es M
oines
Ind. Com
m. Schoo
l Dist., 393
U.S. 503
(1969)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/196
0‐19
69/196
8/19
68_21
31
Jigsaw
Activity
A Collection of U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt Ca
ses: Freedo
m of S
peech
Page 6 of 1
8
Backgrou
nd Facts
Que
stion
Case
Decision
Free
Spe
ech Principle
21.
Law enforcemen
t officers, und
er th
e authority
of a
warrant, searche
d Ro
bert
Stanley's ho
me pu
rsuant to
an investigation of his alleged bo
okmaking activities.
During the search, the
officers foun
d three reels of eight‐m
illim
eter film
. The
officers view
ed th
e films, con
clud
ed th
ey were ob
scen
e, and
seized them
. Stanley
was th
en tried and convicted un
der a
Geo
rgia law prohibitin
g the po
ssession
of
obscen
e materials.
Didthe Geo
rgia
statute infringe upo
n the freedo
m of
expression
protected
by
the First
Amen
dmen
t?
Stan
ley v. Georgia,
394 U.S. 557
(1969)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/196
0‐19
69/196
8/19
68_293
22.
Claren
ce Brand
enbu
rg, a leader in
the Ku
Klux Klan, m
ade a speech at a
Klan rally
and was later convicted un
der a
n Ohio crim
inal syndicalism law. The
law m
ade
illegal advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or u
nlaw
ful m
etho
ds of terrorism
as
a means of accom
plishing
indu
strial or po
litical reform," as well as assembling
"with
any
society, group
, or a
ssem
blage of persons fo
rmed
to te
ach or advocate
the do
ctrine
s of criminal syndicalism."
DidOhio's crim
inal
synd
icalism law,
proh
ibiting
pub
lic
speech th
at advocates
variou
s illegal
activities, violate
Brande
nburg's right to
free
spe
ech as
protected by th
e First
and Fourteen
th
Amen
dmen
ts?
Bran
denb
urg v.
Ohio, 395
U.S. 444
(1969)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/
cases/19
60‐
1969
/196
8/19
68_492
23.
A 19‐year‐old dep
artm
ent store worker expressed his op
positio
n to th
e Vietnam
War by wearing
a jacket emblazon
ed with
an antiw
ar m
essage th
at includ
ed a
four‐le
tter expletive. The
you
ng m
an, Paul Coh
en, w
as charged
und
er a Califo
rnia
statute that prohibits "maliciously and
willfully disturb[in
g] th
e pe
ace and qu
iet o
f any ne
ighb
orho
od or p
erson [by] offen
sive con
duct." Coh
en was fo
und guilty and
senten
ced to 30 days in
jail
DidCalifornia's
statute, prohibitin
g the display of
offensive messages
such as Co
hen’s,
violate freedo
m of
expression
as
protected by th
e First
Amen
dmen
t?
Cohen v. Califo
rnia,
403 U.S. 15 (1971)
http://law
.jrank.org/page
s/12
820/Co
hen‐v‐
California.html
24.
Individu
als sought to
distribute hand
bills in
the interior m
all area of a large
privately ow
ned shop
ping
cen
ter. The
owne
r of th
e mall had
a strict n
o‐hand
bill
rule. Security
guards asked them
to stop, und
er th
reat of arrest, and
suggested
they cou
ld resum
e their a
ctivities on the pu
blic streets and
sidew
alks adjacen
t to
but o
utside
the center, w
hich th
ey did.
By preventing the
distribu
tion of
hand
bills in
the mall,
did the ow
ner o
f the
mall den
y the free
speech rights of th
ose
distribu
ting the
hand
bills?
Lloyd Co
rp. v.
Tann
er, 407
U.S.
551 (1972)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/197
0‐19
79/197
1/19
71_71_49
2
32
Jigsaw
Activity
A Collection of U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt Ca
ses: Freedo
m of S
peech
Page 7 of 1
8
Backgrou
nd Facts
Que
stion
Case
Decision
Free
Spe
ech Principle
25.
State officials in
Geo
rgia sou
ght to en
join th
e show
ing of allegedly ob
scen
e films
at th
e Paris Adu
lt Theatre. The
The
atre clearly warne
d po
tential viewers of th
e sexual nature of th
e films and requ
ired
that patrons be at least 2
1 years of age.
The Geo
rgia Sup
reme Co
urt h
eld that th
e films were "hard core" po
rnograph
y un
protected by th
e Co
nstitution.
Did th
e Geo
rgia
injunctio
n against the
films violate the First
Amen
dmen
t's
guarantee of freedo
m
of expression?
Paris Adu
lt Theatre
v. Slaton, 413
U.S.
49 (1
973)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/197
0‐19
79/197
2/19
72_71_10
51
26.
Marvin Miller, after con
ducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of
"adu
lt" m
aterial, was con
victed
of violatin
g a California statute proh
ibiting
the
distribu
tion of obscene
material. Some un
willing recipien
ts of M
iller's brochures
complaine
d to th
e po
lice, initiating the legal proceed
ings.
Are
the sale and
distribu
tion of
obscen
e materials by
mail protected
und
er
the First A
men
dmen
t's
freedo
m of spe
ech
guarantee?
Miller v. Califo
rnia,
413 U.S. 15 (1973)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/197
0‐19
79/197
1/19
71_70_73
27.
Elmer Gertz was an attorney hired
by a family to
sue
a police officer who
had
killed the family's son
. In a magazine called American
Opinion
, the
John
Birch
Society accused Gertz of b
eing
a "Leninist" and a "Com
mun
ist‐fron
ter" because he
chose to rep
resent clients who
were suing a law enforcemen
t officer. G
ertz lost
his libel suit b
ecause a lower cou
rt fo
und that th
e magazine had no
t violated the
actual m
alice test fo
r libel th
at th
e Suprem
e Co
urt h
ad establishe
d in New
York
Times v. Sullivan
(1964).
Doe
s the First
Amen
dmen
t allow a
newspaper or
broadcaster to assert
defamatory
falseh
oods abo
ut an
individu
al who
is
neith
er a pub
lic
official nor a pub
lic
figure?
Gertz v. R
obert
Welch Inc., 418
U.S.
323 (1974)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/197
0‐19
79/197
3/19
73_72_61
7
33
Jigsaw
Activity
A Collection of U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt Ca
ses: Freedo
m of S
peech
Page 8 of 1
8
Backgrou
nd Facts
Que
stion
Case
Decision
Free
Spe
ech Principle
28.
In th
e wake of th
e Watergate affair, Con
gress attempted
to fe
rret out corruption
in political cam
paigns by restrictin
g fin
ancial con
tributions to
candidates. Amon
g othe
r things, the
law set limits on the am
ount of m
oney an individu
al cou
ld
contribu
te to
a single campaign and it requ
ired repo
rting of con
tributions abo
ve a
certain threshold am
ount. The
Fed
eral Election Co
mmission
was created
to
enforce the statute.
Didthe lim
its placed
on electoral
expe
nditu
res by th
e Fede
ral Election
Campaign Act of 1
971,
and related provisions
of th
e Internal
Revenu
e Co
de of 1
954
violate the First
Amen
dmen
t's
freedo
m of spe
ech
and association
clauses?
Buckley v. Valeo,
424 U.S. 1
(1976)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/197
0‐19
79/197
5/19
75_75_43
6
29.
Acting on
beh
alf o
f prescription drug
con
sumers, th
e Virginia Citizens Con
sumer
Coun
cil challenged
a Virg
inia statute th
at declared it un
profession
al con
duct fo
r licen
sed ph
armacists to
advertise their prescriptio
n drug
prices. On appe
al from
an
adverse ruling by a th
ree‐judge District C
ourt panel, the
Sup
reme Co
urt
granted the Virginia State Board of P
harm
acy review
.
Is a statutory ban
on
advertising
prescriptio
n drug
prices by licen
sed
pharmacists a
violation of
"com
mercial spe
ech"
unde
r the
First
Amen
dmen
t?
Virginia Pha
rmacy
Bd. v. V
irginia
Consum
er Cou
ncil,
425 U.S. 748
(1976)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/197
0‐19
79/197
5/19
75_74_89
5
30.
Whe
n striking
mem
bers of a
union
picketed in fron
t of the
ir em
ployer's leased
store located in a private sho
pping center, the
sho
pping center's gen
eral m
anager
threaten
ed th
em with
arrest for criminal trespass if th
ey did not dep
art, and
they
left.
Were the picketers
denied
their F
irst
Amen
dmen
t rights?
Hud
gens v. N
LRB,
424 U.S. 507
(1976)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/197
0‐19
79/197
5/19
75_74_77
3
31.
A New
Ham
pshire law req
uired all non
commercial veh
icles to bear licen
se plates
containing
the state motto "Live Free or Die." Geo
rge Maynard, a Je
hovah's
Witn
ess, fo
und the motto to
be contrary to
his religious and
political beliefs and
cut the
words "or Die" off h
is plate. M
aynard was con
victed
of violatin
g the state
law and
was sub
sequ
ently
fine
d and given a jail senten
ce.
Didthe New
Ham
pshire law
unconstitutionally
interfere with
the
freedo
m of spe
ech
guaranteed
by the
First A
men
dmen
t?
Woo
ley v. M
ayna
rd,
430 U.S. 705
(1977)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/197
0‐19
79/197
6/19
76_75_14
53
34
Jigsaw
Activity
A Collection of U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt Ca
ses: Freedo
m of S
peech
Page 9 of 1
8
Backgrou
nd Facts
Que
stion
Case
Decision
Free
Spe
ech Principle
32.
During a mid‐afterno
on weekly broadcast, a New
York radio station aired Geo
rge
Carlin's m
onologue
"Filth
y Words." Carlin
spo
ke of the
words th
at cou
ld not be
said on the pu
blic airwaves. The station warne
d listene
rs th
at th
e mon
ologue
includ
ed "sensitive language which m
ight be regarded
as offensive to som
e." The
FCC received
a com
plaint from
a m
an who
stated that he had he
ard the broadcast
while driving
with
his you
ng son
.
Doe
s the First
Amen
dmen
t den
y governmen
t any
po
wer to
restrict the
pu
blic broadcast of
inde
cent language
unde
r any
circum
stances?
FCC v. Pacifica
Foun
datio
n, 438
U.S. 726
(1978)
http://law
.jrank.org/page
s/12
652/Fede
ral‐
Commun
ications‐
Commission
‐v‐Pacifica‐
Foun
datio
n.html
33.
The Pu
blic Service Com
mission
of N
ew York (PSC), in th
e interest of con
serving
energy, enacted
a regulation that prohibited electric utilities from
promoting
electricity
use. The
PSC's regulation distinguishe
d prom
otional advertising from
inform
ational advertising, which was permitted
. Cen
tral Hud
son Gas and
Electric
challenged
the regulatio
n in a New
York State Suprem
e Co
urt, which uph
eld the
regulatio
n. The
App
ellate Division of th
e New
York State Suprem
e Co
urt a
ffirmed
the de
cision
, as did the New
York Co
urt o
f App
eals.
Didthe PSC's ban on
advertising violate the
freedo
m of spe
ech
protected by th
e First
and Fourteen
th
Amen
dmen
ts?
Central H
udson Gas
& Electric
Corp. v.
Public Service
Commission
of N
ew
York, 447
U.S. 557
(1980)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/197
0‐19
79/197
9/19
79_79_56
5
34.
High scho
ol stude
nts seeking supp
ort for th
eir op
positio
n to a United Nations
resolutio
n against Z
ionism
set up a table in Prune
Yard to
distribute literature and
solicit signatures fo
r a pe
tition. A security
guard to
ld th
em to
leave be
cause their
actio
ns violated the shop
ping
cen
ter's regulations against "pu
blicly expressive"
activities.
DidPrun
eYard's
regulatio
ns violate th
e stud
ents' free speech
rights?
Prun
eYard Shop
ping
Center v. R
obins,
447 U.S. 74 (1980)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/197
0‐19
79/197
9/19
79_79_28
9
35.
After a series of m
istrials in
a m
urde
r case in
the state of Virg
inia, a trial jud
ge
closed
the trial to the pu
blic and
the med
ia. D
efen
se cou
nsel brought th
e closure
motion; th
e prosecution did no
t object. Two repo
rters of Richm
ond New
spapers,
Inc. challenged
the judge's actio
n.
Did th
e closure of th
e trial to the press and
public violate th
e First
Amen
dmen
t or the
Sixth Amen
dmen
t?
Richmon
d New
spap
ers Inc. v.
Virginia, 448
U.S.
555 (1980)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/197
0‐19
79/197
9/19
79_79_24
3
35
Jigsaw
Activity
A Collection of U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt Ca
ses: Freedo
m of S
peech
Page 10 of 18
Ba
ckgrou
nd Facts
Que
stion
Case
Decision
Free
Spe
ech Principle
36.
A New
York child porno
graphy
law prohibited pe
rson
s from
kno
wingly prom
oting
sexual perform
ances by children un
der the
age of sixteen
by distribu
ting material
that dep
icts such pe
rformances.
Didthe law violate th
e First a
nd Fou
rteenth
Amen
dmen
ts?
New
Yorkv. Ferber,
458 U.S. 747
(1982)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/198
0‐19
89/198
1/19
81_81_55
37.
The Island
Trees Union
Free Scho
ol District's Board of E
ducatio
n (the
"Bo
ard"),
actin
g contrary to
the recommen
datio
ns of a
com
mittee
of p
aren
ts and
schoo
l staff, orde
red that certain boo
ks be removed
from
its district's junior high and
high
schoo
l libraries. In supp
ort o
f its actions, the
Board said such boo
ks were:
"anti‐A
merican, anti‐C
hristia
n, anti‐Sem
itic, and
just plain filth
y." Acting through
his friend
Francis Pico, and
on be
half of several other stude
nts, Steven Pico
brou
ght suit in fede
ral district cou
rt challenging the Bo
ard's de
cision
to rem
ove
the bo
oks. The
Board won
; the
U.S. Cou
rt of A
ppeals fo
r the Second
Circuit
reversed
. The
Board petition
ed th
e U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt, which granted
certio
rari.
Didthe Bo
ard of
Education's de
cision
to ban
certain boo
ks
from
its junior high
and high
schoo
l libraries, based
on
their conten
t, violate
the First A
men
dmen
t's
freedo
m of spe
ech
protectio
ns?
Board Of E
ducatio
n v. Pico, 457
U.S. 853
(1982)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/198
0‐19
89/198
1/19
81_80_20
43
38.
An assistant d
istrict a
ttorne
y in New
Orleans stron
gly op
posed internal office
proced
ures and
expressed
her view to
several of h
er sup
ervisors. Sho
rtly
thereafter, she
prepared and distribu
ted a qu
estio
nnaire to
other assistant district
attorneys in th
e office concerning
office transfer policy, office morale, th
e ne
ed
for a grievance committee, the
level of con
fiden
ce in
sup
ervisors, and
whe
ther
employees felt pressured to work in political cam
paigns. She
was te
rminated
for
refusal to accept th
e transfer, and
was to
ld her th
at her distribution of th
e qu
estio
nnaire was con
side
red an
act of insub
ordinatio
n.
Were the First
Amen
dmen
t rights
denied
the assistant
district attorne
y whe
n she was fired un
der
these circum
stances?
Conn
ick v. M
yers,
461 U.S. 138
(1983)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/198
0‐19
89/198
2/19
82_81_12
51
39.
In 1982, th
e National Park Service issued
a re
newable permit to th
e Co
mmun
ity
for Creative Non
‐Violence to con
duct a dem
onstratio
n in Lafayette Park and the
Mall in Washington, D.C. The
C.C.N.V. dem
onstratio
n was intend
ed to
rep
resent
the plight of the
hom
eless, and
the de
mon
strators wishe
d to sleep
in te
nt cities
set u
p in th
e park. Citing
anti‐cam
ping
regulations, the
Park Service de
nied
the
requ
est.
Didthe National Park
Service regulatio
ns
violate the First
Amen
dmen
t by
curtailing symbo
lic
speech?
Clark v. C.C.N.V.,
468 U.S. 288
(1984)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/198
0‐19
89/198
3/19
83_82_19
98
36
Jigsaw
Activity
A Collection of U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt Ca
ses: Freedo
m of S
peech
Page 11 of 18
Ba
ckgrou
nd Facts
Que
stion
Case
Decision
Free
Spe
ech Principle
40.
At a
schoo
l assem
bly of app
roximately 600 high
schoo
l stude
nts, M
atthew
Fraser
made a speech nom
inating a fellow stude
nt fo
r elective office. In
his spe
ech,
Fraser used what som
e ob
servers be
lieved was a graph
ic sexual m
etapho
r to
prom
ote the cand
idacy of his friend
. As part of its disciplinary code
, Bethe
l High
Scho
ol enforced a rule prohibitin
g cond
uct that "substantially interferes with
the
educational process . . . includ
ing the use of obscene
, profane
language or
gestures." Fraser was suspe
nded
from
schoo
l for tw
o days.
Doe
s the First
Amen
dmen
t prevent a
scho
ol district from
disciplining a high
scho
ol stude
nt fo
r giving
a lewd speech
at a high scho
ol
assembly?
Bethel Schoo
l District N
o. 403
v.
Fraser, 478
U.S. 675
(1986)
http://oyez.org/cases/19
80‐
1989
/198
5/19
85_84_16
67
41.
The Spectrum
, the
schoo
l‐spo
nsored
new
spaper of H
azelwoo
d East High Scho
ol,
was written
and
edited by stude
nts. In
May 1983, Rob
ert E
. Reyno
lds, th
e scho
ol
principal, received
the page proofs for the May 13 issue. Reyno
lds foun
d tw
o of
the articles in th
e issue to be inapprop
riate, and
ordered
that th
e pages on
which
the articles appe
ared
be with
held from
pub
lication. Cathy
Kuh
lmeier and
two
othe
r form
er Hazelwoo
d East stude
nts brou
ght the
case to cou
rt.
Did th
e principal's
deletio
n of th
e articles
violate the stud
ents'
rights und
er th
e First
Amen
dmen
t?
Hazelwoo
d Scho
ol
District v.
Kuhlmeier, 484
U.S.
260 (1988)
http://oyez.org/cases/19
80‐
1989
/198
7/19
87_86_83
6
42.
In 1984, in
fron
t of the
Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee
John
son bu
rned
an American
flag as a m
eans of p
rotest against Reagan administration po
licies. Jo
hnson was
tried and convicted un
der a Texas law outlawing flag de
secration. He was
senten
ced to one
year in jail and assessed
a $2,000 fin
e. After th
e Texas Co
urt o
f Crim
inal App
eals reversed the convictio
n, th
e case wen
t to the Suprem
e Co
urt.
Is th
e de
secration of
an American
flag, by
burning or otherwise,
a form
of spe
ech that
is protected
und
er th
e First A
men
dmen
t?
Texas v. Jo
hnson,
491 U.S. 397
(1989)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/198
0‐19
89/198
8/19
88_88_15
5
43.
In 1989, Con
gress passed
the Flag Protection Act,w
hich m
ade it a crim
e to destroy
an American
flag or a
ny likene
ss of an American
flag th
at m
ay be "com
mon
ly
displayed." The law did, how
ever, allow prope
r disposal of a
worn or soiled flag.
Several prosecutio
ns resulted from
the Act. Eichm
an set a flag ablaze on
the step
s of th
e U.S. Capito
l while protesting the governmen
t's dom
estic
and
foreign po
licy.
Ano
ther prosecutio
n (United States v. H
aggerty) resulted from
a flag‐burning
in
Seattle
protesting the passage of th
e Flag Protection Act. The
cases (E
ichm
an's
and Haggerty's) were argued
together.
Didthe Act violate
freedo
m of e
xpression
protected by th
e First
Amen
dmen
t?
United States v.
Eichman
, 496
U.S.
310 (1990)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/198
0‐19
89/198
9/19
89_89_14
33
37
Jigsaw
Activity
A Collection of U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt Ca
ses: Freedo
m of S
peech
Page 12 of 18
Ba
ckgrou
nd Facts
Que
stion
Case
Decision
Free
Spe
ech Principle
44.
After Je
ffrey Masson was fired from
his position
at the
Sigmun
d Freu
d Archives,
Jane
t Malcolm
interviewed
him
for an
article in
the New
Yorker magazine.
Malcolm
’s article includ
ed m
any long
direct q
uotatio
ns from
Masson. The
article
presen
ted Masson as extremely arrogant and
con
descen
ding; at o
ne point, he was
quoted
as calling
him
self "the
greatest a
nalyst who
ever lived
." How
ever, M
alcolm
fabricated
many of th
e more distasteful quo
tatio
ns. M
asson sued
for libel. The
District C
ourt dismissed the case on First A
men
dmen
t free speech groun
ds
because Masson was a pub
lic figure.
Doe
s the First
Amen
dmen
t give the
New
Yorker a right to
publish fabricated
qu
otations attrib
uted
to a pub
lic figure?
Masson v. New
Yorker M
agazine,
Inc., 501
U.S. 496
(1991)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/199
0‐19
99/199
0/19
90_89_17
99
45.
To keep crim
inals from
profiting from
crimes by selling
their stories, New
York
State's 1977
"Son of Sam
" law ordered
that proceed
s from
such de
als be
turned
over to
the New
York State Crim
e Victim
s Bo
ard. The
Board was to
dep
osit the
mon
ey into escrow accou
nts that victim
s could later claim
through civil suits. In
1987, the
Board ordered
Hen
ry Hill, a fo
rmer gangster who
sold his story to Sim
on
& Schuster, to
turn over h
is paymen
ts from
a boo
k de
al.
Didthe Son of Sam
law violate th
e free
speech clause of th
e First A
men
dmen
t?
Simon
& Schuster v.
NY Crim
e Victim
s Bo
ard, 502
U.S. 105
(1991)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/199
0‐19
99/199
1/19
91_90_10
59
46.
Several teenagers allegedly bu
rned
a crude
ly fashione
d cross on
a black family's
lawn. The
police charged on
e of th
e teen
s un
der a local bias‐motivated
criminal
ordinance that prohibits th
e display of a sym
bol that "arou
ses anger, alarm
or
resentmen
t in othe
rs on the basis of race, color, creed
, religion or gen
der." The
trial cou
rt dismissed this charge. The
state Sup
reme Co
urt reversed. R.A.V.
appe
aled
to th
e U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt.
Is th
e ordinance overly
broad and
impe
rmissibly
conten
t‐based in
violation of th
e First
Amen
dmen
t free
speech clause?
R.A.V. v. St. Paul,
505 U.S. 377
(1992)
http://law
.jrank.org/page
s/12
681/R‐V‐v‐City‐St‐
Paul.htm
l
47.
A New
York law autho
rized scho
ols to regulate the after‐ho
ur use of schoo
l prop
erty and
facilities. The
Cen
ter M
oriche
s Scho
ol District, acting un
der the
statute, prohibited the use of its prop
erty by any religious group
. The
District
refused repe
ated
req
uests by Lam
b's Ch
apel to
use th
e scho
ol's facilities for an
after‐ho
urs religious‐orien
ted film series on
family value
s and child
rearing. The
Ch
apel brought suit a
gainst th
e scho
ol district in fede
ral cou
rt.
Did th
e district violate
the First A
men
dmen
t's
freedo
m of spe
ech
clause whe
n it de
nied
Lamb's Ch
apel th
e use
of schoo
l premises to
show
religious‐
oriented
film
s?
Lamb's Ch
apel v.
Center M
oriches
Scho
ol District, 508
U.S. 384
(1993)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/199
0‐19
99/199
2/19
92_91_20
24
38
Jigsaw
Activity
A Collection of U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt Ca
ses: Freedo
m of S
peech
Page 13 of 18
Ba
ckgrou
nd Facts
Que
stion
Case
Decision
Free
Spe
ech Principle
48.
This action was filed by th
e Pro‐Ch
oice Network of W
estern New
York (PCN
), on
be
half of health
care providers, to
enjoin Paul Schen
ck and
others from
continuo
usly staging
blockades and
other disruptive illegal activities in
fron
t of
abortio
n clinics. After its restraining orde
r proved ineffective, a District C
ourt
issued
a prelim
inary injunctio
n creatin
g "fixed
buffer zone
s," which prohibited
demon
stratio
ns with
in fifteen feet of e
ntrances to
abo
rtion clinics, parking
lots, or
drivew
ays. The
cou
rt also created "floating bu
ffer zon
es" proh
ibiting
protesters
from
com
ing with
in 15 feet of p
eople or veh
icles seeking access to
the clinics.
After th
e App
ellate Cou
rt's decision to uph
old the District C
ourt's ruling that th
e "buffer zon
es" were constitutional, the Suprem
e Co
urt g
ranted
Schen
ck certio
rari.
Dideither or bo
th
type
s of "bu
ffer
zone
s" violate
Sche
nck's First
Amen
dmen
t right to
freedo
m of spe
ech?
Schenck v. Pro‐
Choice Network of
Western New
York,
519 U.S. 357
(1997)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/199
0‐19
99/199
6/19
96_95_10
65
49.
Several litigants challenged
the constitutionality of tw
o provisions in
the 1996
Co
mmun
ications Decen
cy Act. Inten
ded to protect m
inors from
unsuitable
Internet m
aterial, the Act criminalized
the intentional transmission
of "ob
scen
e or
inde
cent" messages as well as the transm
ission
of information that dep
icts or
describe
s "sexual or excretory activities or organs" in a m
anne
r deemed
"offen
sive" by com
mun
ity stand
ards. A
fter being
enjoine
d by
a District C
ourt from
en
forcing the above provisions, excep
t for th
e on
e concerning
obscenity and
its
inhe
rent protection against child porno
graphy, A
ttorne
y Gen
eral Ja
net R
eno
appe
aled
directly
to th
e Suprem
e Co
urt a
s provided
for b
y the Act's spe
cial review
provisions.
Didcertain provisions
of th
e 1996
Co
mmun
ications
Decen
cy Act violate
the First a
nd Fifth
Amen
dmen
ts by be
ing
overly broad
and
vague in th
eir
defin
ition
s of th
e type
s of Internet
commun
ications th
at
they criminalized
?
Reno
v. A
CLU, 521
U.S. 844
(1997)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/199
0‐19
99/199
6/19
96_96_51
1
50.
The National Fou
ndation on
the Arts and Hum
anities Act entrusts the National
Endo
wmen
t for th
e Arts (NEA
) with
discretion to award fin
ancial grants to th
e arts. The
NEA
's broad
decision guidelines are: "artistic
and
cultural significance,"
with
emph
asis on "creativity
and
cultural diversity professional excellence," and
the en
couragem
ent o
f "pu
blic edu
catio
n and appreciatio
n of th
e arts." In
1990,
Congress amen
ded the crite
ria by requ
iring the NEA
to con
side
r "artistic
excellence and artistic
merit taking
into con
side
ratio
n gene
ral stand
ards of
decency and respect for th
e diverse be
liefs and
value
s of th
e American
pub
lic."
After suffering
a fu
nding rejection, Karen
Finley, along
with
three othe
r pe
rformance artists and
the National A
ssociatio
n of Artists' O
rganizations,
challenged
the NEA
's amen
ded statutory review
proceed
ings as un
constitutionally
vague and discriminatory. After con
secutiv
e district and
app
ellate cou
rt ru
lings in
favor of Finley, th
e Suprem
e Co
urt g
ranted
the NEA
certio
rari
Werethe statutory
fund
ing guidelines
requ
iring the NEA
to
consider artistic
excellence, m
erit, and
gene
ral stand
ards of
"decen
cy and
respe
ct"
overly vague
and
cond
ucive of
view
point
discrimination in
violation of th
e First
Amen
dmen
t's
freedo
m of e
xpression
guarantees?
Nationa
l Endo
wment for th
e Arts v. Finley, 524
U.S. 569
(1998)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/199
0‐19
99/199
7/19
97_97_37
1
39
Jigsaw
Activity
A Collection of U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt Ca
ses: Freedo
m of S
peech
Page 14 of 18
Ba
ckgrou
nd Facts
Que
stion
Case
Decision
Free
Spe
ech Principle
51.
During the 1992
race for A
rkansas' Third Con
gression
al District, th
e Arkansas
Educational Television Co
mmission
(AETC) – a state‐owne
d pu
blic te
levision
broadcaster –
spo
nsored
a deb
ate be
tween the major party candidates. Run
ning
as an inde
pend
ent candidate with
little pop
ular sup
port, R
alph
Forbe
s sought to
participate in th
e de
bate but was den
ied pe
rmission
. After unsuccessfully
challenging AETC's refusal in district cou
rt, Forbe
s appe
aled
and
won
a reversal.
AETC, th
en app
ealed and the Suprem
e Co
urt g
ranted
certio
rari.
Was th
e exclusion of a
ballot‐qu
alified
cand
idate from
a
debate spo
nsored
by a
state‐ow
ned pu
blic
television
broadcaster
a violation of th
e cand
idate's First
Amen
dmen
t right to
freedo
m of spe
ech?
Arkan
sas Ed.
Television
Com
m. v.
Forbes, 523
U.S. 666
(1998)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/199
0‐19
99/199
7/19
97_96_77
9
52.
A Colorado statute makes it unlaw
ful for any person with
in 100
feet of a
health
care facility's en
trance to
"know
ingly approach" with
in 8 fe
et of ano
ther person,
with
out that p
erson's consen
t, in
order to
pass "a leaflet o
r hand
bill to, display a
sign
to, or en
gage in
oral protest, edu
catio
n, or cou
nseling with
[that] person...."
Leila Hill and
others, sidew
alk coun
selors who
offer abo
rtion alternatives to
wom
en entering abortio
n clinics, sou
ght to en
join th
e statute's en
forcem
ent in
state court, claim
ing violations of the
ir First Amen
dmen
t free speech right and
right to a free
press.
DidCo
lorado
's
statutory requ
irem
ent
that spe
akers ob
tain
consen
t from peo
ple
with
in 100
feet of a
he
alth care facility's
entrance before
speaking, displaying
signs, or d
istributing
leaflets to
such pe
ople
violate the First
Amen
dmen
t rights of
the speaker?
Hill v. Colorad
o, 530
U.S. 703
(2000)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/199
0‐19
99/199
9/19
99_98_18
56
53.
The Bo
y Scou
ts of A
merica revoked form
er Eagle Scout and
assistant scoutmaster
James Dale's adult m
embe
rship whe
n the organizatio
n discovered
that Dale was a
homosexual and
a gay rights activist. In
1992, Dale filed
suit a
gainst th
e Bo
y Scou
ts, alleging
that th
e Bo
y Scou
ts had
violated the New
Jersey statute
proh
ibiting
discrim
ination on
the basis of sexual orien
tatio
n in places of pub
lic
accommod
ation. The
Boy
Scouts, a private, not‐for‐profit organization, asserted
that hom
osexual con
duct was inconsistent with
the values it was attem
pting to
instill in
you
ng peo
ple
Didthe application of
New
Jersey's pub
lic
accommod
ations law
violate the Bo
y Scou
ts'
First A
men
dmen
t right
of expressive
association to bar
homosexuals from
serving as troo
p leaders?
Boy Scou
ts of
America v. Dale, 530
U.S. 640
(2000)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/199
0‐19
99/199
9/19
99_99_69
9
40
Jigsaw
Activity
A Collection of U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt Ca
ses: Freedo
m of S
peech
Page 15 of 18
Ba
ckgrou
nd Facts
Que
stion
Case
Decision
Free
Spe
ech Principle
54.
The Ch
icago Park District is respon
sible for o
peratin
g pu
blic parks and
other pub
lic
prop
erty in
Chicago. Pursuant to its autho
rity, th
e Park District a
dopted
an
ordinance requ
iring individu
als to obtain a pe
rmit be
fore con
ducting large‐scale
even
ts in
pub
lic parks. The
ordinance provide
s that th
e Park District m
ay den
y a
perm
it on
any
of 1
3 specified
groun
ds, m
ust p
rocess app
lications with
in 28 days,
and must e
xplain its reason
s for a de
nial. A
n un
successful app
licant m
ay app
eal,
first, to the Park District's general sup
erintend
ent a
nd th
en to
state cou
rt. The
Windy City
Hem
p Develop
men
t Board app
lied on
several occasions fo
r permits to
ho
ld rallies advocatin
g the legalization of m
arijuana. Som
e pe
rmits were granted
and othe
rs were de
nied
. Ultimately, th
e Bo
ard filed
suit, alleging
that th
e ordinance is uncon
stitu
tional on its face. The
District C
ourt granted
the Park
District sum
mary judgmen
t. The
Cou
rt of A
ppeals affirmed
.
Dida mun
icipal park
ordinance requ
iring
individu
als to obtain a
perm
it be
fore
cond
uctin
g large‐scale
even
ts have to
contain, con
sisten
t with
the First
Amen
dmen
t, certain
proced
ural
safeguards?
Thom
as v. Chicago
Pa
rk District, 534
U.S. 316
(2002)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/200
0‐20
09/200
1/20
01_00_12
49
55.
The Ch
ild Porno
graphy
Prevention Act of 1
996 (CPP
A) p
rohibits "any visual
depiction, includ
ing any ph
otograph
, film
, video
, picture, or compu
ter or
compu
ter‐gene
rated im
age or picture" that "is, or appe
ars to be, of a
minor
engaging
in sexually explicit cond
uct," and any sexually explicit im
age that is
"advertised
, promoted
, presented
, described
, or d
istributed
in such a manne
r that
conveys the im
pression
" it de
picts "a m
inor engaging in sexually explicit cond
uct."
The Free
Spe
ech Co
alition
, an adult‐en
tertainm
ent trade
associatio
n, and
others
filed
suit, alleging
that th
e "app
ears to
be" and
"conveys the im
pression
" provisions are overbroad
and
vague
and
, thu
s, restrain works otherwise protected
by th
e First A
men
dmen
t. Reversing
the District C
ourt, the
Cou
rt of A
ppeals held
the CP
PA invalid
on its face, finding
it to
be substantially overbroad
because it
bans m
aterials th
at are neither obscene
und
er M
iller v. Califo
rnia, 413
U.S. 15, nor
prod
uced
by the exploitatio
n of real children as in
New
York v. Ferber, 458
U.S.
747.
Didthe Ch
ild
Pornograph
y Preven
tion Act of
1996
abridge freedo
m
of spe
ech whe
n it
proscribes a
significant universe of
speech th
at is neither
obscen
e un
der M
iller
v. Califo
rnia nor child
pornograph
y un
der
New
York v. Ferber?
Ashcroft v. Free
Speech Coa
lition,
535 U.S. 234
(2002)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/200
0‐20
09/200
1/20
01_00_79
5
41
Jigsaw
Activity
A Collection of U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt Ca
ses: Freedo
m of S
peech
Page 16 of 18
Ba
ckgrou
nd Facts
Que
stion
Case
Decision
Free
Spe
ech Principle
56.
Minne
sota's Con
stitu
tion provides fo
r the selection of all state judges by po
pular
electio
n. The
ann
ouncem
ent clause of th
e Minne
sota Sup
reme Co
urt's canon
of
judicial con
duct prohibits a candidate from
ann
ouncing his or her views on
disputed
legal or po
litical issues. W
hile ru
nning for associate justice of th
e Minne
sota Sup
reme Co
urt, Gregory W
ersal filed suit, seeking
a declaratio
n that
the anno
unce clause violates th
e First A
men
dmen
t and
an injunctio
n against its
enforcem
ent. W
ersal alleged that he was fo
rced
to refrain from
ann
ouncing his
view
s on
dispu
ted issues during the 1998
cam
paign, to
the po
int w
here he
declined
respo
nse to que
stions put to
him
by the press and pu
blic out of con
cern
that he might ru
n afou
l of the
ann
ounce clause. The
District C
ourt fo
und that th
e anno
uncemen
t clause did no
t violate th
e First A
men
dmen
t. The
Cou
rt of A
ppeals
affirmed
.
Doe
s the First
Amen
dmen
t permit
the Minne
sota
Suprem
e Co
urt to
proh
ibit cand
idates
for judicial election in
that state from
anno
uncing
their
view
s on
dispu
ted
legal and
political
issues?
Repu
blican
Party of
Minnesota v. W
hite,
536 U.S. 765
(2002)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/200
0‐20
09/200
1/20
01_01_52
1
57.
Barry Black, Richard Elliott, and
Jonathan
O'M
ara were convicted separately of
violating a Virginia statute th
at m
akes it a fe
lony
"for any pe
rson
..., w
ith th
e intent
of intim
idating any pe
rson
or g
roup
..., to bu
rn...a cross on
the prop
erty of
anothe
r, a highw
ay or o
ther pub
lic place," and
spe
cifie
s that "any such
burning...shall be
prima facie eviden
ce of an intent to
intim
idate a pe
rson
or
grou
p." At trial, B
lack objected on
First Amen
dmen
t groun
ds to
a jury instruction
that cross burning
by itself is sufficient evide
nce from
which th
e requ
ired
"intent
to intim
idate" cou
ld be inferred
. He was fo
und guilty. O'M
ara pleade
d guilty to
charges of violatin
g the statute, but reserved the right to challenge its
constitutionality. In
Elliott's trial, the judge did no
t give an
instruction on
the
statute's prim
a facie eviden
ce provision
. Ultimately, th
e Virginia Sup
reme Co
urt
held, amon
g othe
r things, that the
cross‐burning
statute is uncon
stitu
tional on its
face and
that th
e prim
a facie eviden
ce provision
ren
ders th
e statute overbroad
because the prob
ability of p
rosecutio
n un
der the statute chills the expression
of
protected speech
Didthe
Common
wealth
of
Virginia's cross‐
burning statute, which
proh
ibits th
e bu
rning
of a cross with
the
intent of intim
idating
any pe
rson
or g
roup
of persons, violate th
e First A
men
dmen
t?
Virginia v. B
lack,
538 U.S. 343
(2003)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/200
0‐20
09/200
2/20
02_01_11
07
58.
Congress passed the Ch
ildren's Internet Protection Act (C
IPA) in 2000, req
uiring
pu
blic libraries to install Interne
t filtering software on
their com
puters in order to
qu
alify
for fede
ral fun
ding. The
American
Library Associatio
n and othe
rs
challenged
the law, claim
ing that it im
prop
erly req
uired them
to restrict the
First
Amen
dmen
t rights of th
eir patron
s. As stipulated
by the law, a th
ree‐judge pane
l he
ard the case and
ruled
unanimou
sly that th
e CIPA
violated the First
Amen
dmen
t.
Doe
sCo
ngress have
the authority
to
requ
ire libraries to
censor Internet
conten
t in orde
r to
receive fede
ral
fund
ing?
United States v.
American
Library
Associatio
n, 539
U.S. 194
(2003)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/200
0‐20
09/200
2/20
02_02_36
1
42
Jigsaw
Activity
A Collection of U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt Ca
ses: Freedo
m of S
peech
Page 17 of 18
Ba
ckgrou
nd Facts
Que
stion
Case
Decision
Free
Spe
ech Principle
59.
Congress passed the Ch
ild Online Protectio
n Act (C
OPA
) to preven
t minors from
accessing po
rnograph
y on
line. The
American
Civil Libe
rties Union
(ACLU) and
on
line pu
blishe
rs sue
d in fe
deral cou
rt to
prevent enforcemen
t of the
Act, arguing
that it violated the free
spe
ech clause of the
First Amen
dmen
t.
Is th
e Ch
ild Online
Protectio
n Act's
requ
irem
ent that
online pu
blishe
rs
preven
t children from
accessing "m
aterial
that is harmful to
minors" likely to
violate the First
Amen
dmen
t by
restricting too much
protected speech and
using a metho
d that is
not the
least
restrictive on
e available?
Ashcroft v.
American
Civil
Liberties Union
, 542
U.S. 656
(2004)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/200
0‐20
09/200
3/20
03_03_21
8
60.
The Solomon
Amen
dmen
t, 10 U.S.C. 983(b)(1), w
ithho
lds some fede
ral fun
ding
from
colleges and un
iversitie
s that den
y U.S. m
ilitary recruite
rs th
e same access to
stud
ents th
at other employers are given. The
Forum
for A
cade
mic and
Institu
tional Rights challenged
the law, arguing
that it violated the scho
ols' First
Amen
dmen
t right to
expressive association by
req
uiring
them
to assist in military
recruitm
ent.
Didthe Solomon
Amen
dmen
t, which
with
holds certain
fede
ral fun
ds from
colleges and
universitie
s that
restrict th
e access of
military recruite
rs to
stud
ents, violate th
e First A
men
dmen
t?
Rumsfeld v. Forum
for A
cademic and
Institu
tiona
l Rights
(FAIR), 547 U.S. ___
(2006)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/200
0‐20
09/200
5/20
05_04_11
52
43
Jigsaw
Activity
A Collection of U.S. Sup
reme Co
urt Ca
ses: Freedo
m of S
peech
Page 18 of 18
Ba
ckgrou
nd Facts
Que
stion
Case
Decision
Free
Spe
ech Principle
61.
At a
schoo
l‐sup
ervised even
t, Jo
seph
Frede
rick he
ld up a bann
er with
the message
"Bon
g Hits 4 Je
sus," a slang reference to m
arijuana sm
oking. Principal Deb
orah
Morse to
ok away th
e bann
er and
suspe
nded
Frede
rick fo
r ten
days. She
justified
he
r actio
ns by citin
g the scho
ol's policy against the
display of m
aterial that
prom
otes th
e use of illegal drugs. Frede
rick sue
d un
der 4
2 U.S.C. 1983, th
e fede
ral
civil rights statute, alleging
a violatio
n of his First Amen
dmen
t right to
freedo
m of
speech.
Doe
s the First
Amen
dmen
t allow
public schoo
ls to
proh
ibit stud
ents from
displaying
messages
prom
oting the use of
illegal drugs at schoo
l‐supe
rvised
events?
Morse v. Frederick,
551 U.S. ___
(2007)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/200
0‐20
09/200
6/20
06_06_27
8
62.
Summum
, a religious organization, sen
t a letter to
the mayor of P
leasant G
rove,
Utah, asking to place a m
onum
ent in on
e of th
e city's parks. A
lthou
gh th
e park
already ho
used
a m
onum
ent to the Ten Co
mmandm
ents, the
mayor den
ied
Summum
's req
uest because th
e mon
umen
t did not "directly relate to th
e history
of Pleasant G
rove." Sum
mum
filed suit against the
city
in fe
deral cou
rt citing,
amon
g othe
r things, a violatio
n of its First A
men
dmen
t free speech right.
Dida city's refusal to
place a religious
organizatio
n's
mon
umen
t in a pu
blic
park violate th
at
organizatio
n's First
Amen
dmen
t free
speech right whe
n the
park already
con
tains
a mon
umen
t from a
differen
t religious
grou
p?
Pleasant Grove City
v. Sum
mum
, 555
U.S. ___
(2009)
http://w
ww.oyez.org/cas
es/200
0‐20
09/200
8/20
08_07_66
5
Sources:
•OYEZ http://www.oyez.org/
•Justice Learning: Free
Spe
ech Timeline http://www.justicelearning.org/View
Issue.aspx?Issue
ID=4
•
Law Library – American
Law
and
Legal Inform
ation http://law
.jrank.org/
44
Activity
Matters of Interpretation
Page 1 of 2
of 2
Find
ing Bo
unda
ries fo
r Free
Spe
ech in Sup
reme Co
urt Decisions
1.Re
visit the
closing
words of Justice Breyer and
Justice O’Con
nor in th
e vide
o by
rep
laying
the vide
o and reading the transcripts be
low.
1.Re
visit the
closing
words of Justice Breyer and
Justice O’Con
nor in th
e vide
o by
rep
laying
the vide
o and reading the transcripts be
low.
Instructions:
Instructions:
2.Co
mplete the jigsaw activity
in assigne
d grou
ps.
2.Co
mplete the jigsaw activity
in assigne
d grou
ps.
3.After th
e large‐grou
p class discussion
of the
cases, com
plete the chart o
n the ne
xt page to sum
marize what y
ou learne
d.
3.After th
e large‐grou
p class discussion
of the
cases, com
plete the chart o
n the ne
xt page to sum
marize what y
ou learne
d.
Now
we started with
what I th
ink is th
e easiest p
rinciple because it’s th
e most w
idely accepted
, that the
worst th
ing you can do
by way of
abridgem
ent is stop
som
ebod
y from
talking be
cause you do
n’t like what h
e says. Now
that’s called his view
point. O
r it’s called the conten
t or
the expression
or the po
int o
f view. Now
, it’s easiest to say, “Well, certainly that’s protected
.” But even there, you
can
find
som
e bo
rderline
cases. A
nd now
we be
gin to m
ove aw
ay from
that and
say, doe
s it matter if he
’s in
the army? D
oes it matter if he
’s in
high scho
ol? Doe
s it
matter if he
’s in
grammar schoo
l? D
oes it matter what the
sub
ject is? Doe
s it matter w
hen it’s said? Doe
s it matter why
it’s said?
Doe
s it
matter? D
oes it matter? D
oes it matter? A
nd th
ese are no
t just a
sked
, which we were do
ing, to
make it difficult for you
. They were asked
because that’s what h
appe
ns in
a cou
rt th
at’s con
cerned
with
free
spe
ech. W
e get o
ne variatio
n after anothe
r and we have to
decide what the
principles are in
these very differen
t circumstances. A
nd th
at isn’t so easy because th
e on
ly th
ing we all agree
upo
n, is whatever the principle is
in th
is case, it’s going
to be the same for all sim
ilar cases.
Justice Breyer: (Start time 24
:47)
Look
at w
hat w
e’ve been do
ing in th
e last half h
our or so. You
’re getting a little
insight into ou
r job as judges. W
e start w
ith a principle, and
the
principle is one
we can pretty m
uch agree on
. Th
e Co
nstitution says, “Co
ngress . . . shall no
t abridge th
e freedo
m of spe
ech.” That m
eans all
governmen
t, not just Con
gress. But it doe
sn’t say what the
freedo
m of spe
ech is, doe
s It? So that’s left to
peo
ple to work ou
t.
Well, I think
we have seen—
at least in this Cou
rt—that it doe
s matter if the
spe
ech is occurring
in a pub
lic schoo
l, or a schoo
l whe
re children
are un
der the age of becom
ing an
adu
lt, und
er 18, and
that th
e scho
ol doe
s act a
s substitute parental autho
rity in
effect w
hile a child is in
scho
ol and
the scho
ol can
set certain param
eters of beh
avior for th
e stud
ents th
at includ
e speech. I think
we have seen the Co
urt a
ckno
wledge
something
to th
at effect, but at the
sam
e tim
e, th
ere are differen
t circumstances. A
nd if all the stud
ent is saying
is, “I think
the legislature in
this state sho
uld legalize marijuana…
” we didn
’t have that case he
re, but I suspect the
result m
ight be differen
t than a stud
ent saying, “Now
, everybod
y go
out and
smoke marijuana. W
e know
it’s illegal, bu
t you
ought to
do it.” See, two differen
t things, aren’t the
y? And
the Co
urt h
as
recognized
that and
probably prop
erly so. The
example that is often
given
is th
at even for an
adu
lt, it’s OK to prohibit p
eople from
yelling
“Fire!” in a crowde
d theater whe
n it isn’t true just to
stim
ulate everybod
y panicking and trying
to get out. That can
be proh
ibite
d. It’s no
t a
form
of p
rotected
spe
ech in other words. So
there are some lim
its, and
the qu
estio
n for the courts always is whe
re do we fin
d those lim
its and
ho
w do we de
fine the bo
undaries?
Justice O’Con
nor: (Start tim
e: 26:44
)
45
Activity
Matters of Interpretation
Find
ing Bo
unda
ries fo
r Free
Spe
ech in Sup
reme Co
urt Decisions
Page 2 of 2
Foun
dation
al principle (starting po
int): “Co
ngress sha
ll make no
law . . . abridging
the freedo
m of speech . . .”—
U.S. C
onstitu
tion, First Amen
dmen
t Instructions: After th
e class completes th
e jigsaw activity
for analyzing the Suprem
e Co
urt cases, sum
marize principles used for de
fining the lim
its of free
spe
ech
and provide related exam
ples. Group
ings sho
uld be
easily iden
tified.
46
Activity
Free‐Speech Scenarios to Decide
Instructions: Reflect on the principles used by the courts to resolve free speech disputes as you discuss the following scenarios in your group.
1. Off‐campus speech (A scenario described by Justice Breyer in the video) Thinking it would be a fun thing to do, a group of students get together at someone’s house to write a newspaper about the worst things their teachers said that day and distribute it amongst their friends. The newspaper contains insults and uses crude and offensive language when describing their teachers. Now the school wants to discipline them for it. Can they do it? The school thinks it’s a bad idea for education to have the students meet in their houses and pass out a newspaper that criticizes all the teachers in very rude, explicitly awful, slangy ways, so they say, “This is part of our discipline.” Q: How far should the boundaries of authority for a school reach and what criteria should be used to make that decision?
2. Dress code A student persisted in wearing sagging pants to school even though he was told it was against the high school’s dress code. After repeated violations, he was given a long‐term suspension. The student argued that his wearing of the sagging pants conveyed the particular message of African American heritage in the hip‐hop fashion and lifestyle. Q: Was the student’s First Amendment right to free speech denied?
3. Blogger Administrators bar a high school student from running in a student election after the student criticizes them in a blog for their handling of a student festival. In the blog, the student calls the administrators names and asks fellow students and parents to complain to the superintendent to make him mad. Inappropriate language was used in the post, which was written and sent from home. Q: Does the student blogger have a free speech defense?
4. Cyberbullies A student wrote derogatory and hateful comments about another student and posted them online for everyone to read. The comments caused significant emotional distress and interfered with the student’s ability to participate fully in school. School officials punished the author, and the parents are suing the family. The school takes the position that it can punish student conduct if it disrupts class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others even if the student is not in class. Q: When do students’ online comments “cross the line” and become First Amendment concerns? Should Internet speech be regulated, and if so, what criteria should be used? Would it matter if a teacher was being defamed instead of a student?