-
Schenck v. United States
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated in this case his famous aphorism about "falsely shouting fire in a theatre" and set forth a "clear and present danger test" to judge whether speech is protected by the First Amendment. "The question," he wrote, "is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has the right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree." Th -
Evans v. Selma Union High School District of Fresno County
The California State Supreme Court held that the King James version of the Bible was not a "publication of a sectarian, partisan, or denominational character" that a State statute required a public high school library to exclude from its collections. The "fact that the King James version is commonly used by Protestant Churches and not by Catholics" does not "make its character sectarian," the court stated. -
Whitney v. California
Since Anita Whitney did not base her defense on the First Amendment, the Supreme Court, by a 7 to 2 decision, upheld her conviction of being found guilty under the California’s 1919 Criminal Syndicalism Act for allegedly helping to establish the Communist Labor Party, a group the state argued taught the violent overthrow of government. -
Near v, Minnesota
In this case, the Supreme Court interpreted the First and Fourteenth Amendments to forbid "previous restraints" upon publication of a newspaper. "Previous restraints"--or in current terminology, "prior restraints--suppress the freedom of the press to publish without obstruction, and recognize that lawsuits or prosecutions for libel are "subsequent punishments." -
Brandenburg v. Ohio
The Supreme Court established the modern version of the "clear and present danger" doctrine, holding that states only could restrict speech that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action." -
Todd v. Rochester Community Schools
In deciding that Slaughterhouse-Five could not be banned from the libraries and classrooms of the Michigan schools, the Court of Appeals of Michigan declared: "Vonnegut's literary dwellings on war, religion, death, Christ, God, government, politics, and any other subject should be as welcome in the public schools of this state as those of Machiavelli, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Melville, Lenin, Joseph McCarthy, or Walt Disney. -
Reilly v. Noel
Successful challenge in federal court to attempt by Governor to prohibit protesters at the State House from peacefully singing. -
Michaelson v. New England Telephone Company
Successful intervention in opposition to a suit brought by the Attorney General to force the phone company to give assistance in court-ordered wiretaps. -
Nestle v. Moran
Habeas corpus petition filed in state Supreme Court on behalf of courtroom spectators summarily sentenced to jail for turning their backs to a judge. -
State v. Katzberg et al.
Defense assistance of protesters arrested for trespassing after attempting to distribute literature during a celebration of a nuclear submarine launch; the charges were dismissed. -
Multnomah Public Library v. USA
Federal lawsuit filed by the National ACLU, in which a Rhode Island-based web site is a named plaintiff, challenging the constitutionality of a federal law requiring libraries receiving federal funds to install “technology protection measures” on all their Internet access terminals in order to block access to sites that are “harmful to minors.” The Court struck down the statue in 2002. -
Carlow v. Mruk
Federal lawsuit challenging a gag order issued by a Coventry fire district chief against two firefighters after they publicly expressed fire-department related concerns about school safety. The defendants agreed to rescind the challenged policies in 2004. Attorneys fees were awarded after a contempt motion was filed against defendants in 2005 for failing to abide by the agreement . -
R.I. ACLU v. Begin
Federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of various aspects of Rhode Island’s campaign finance law, and the Board of Elections’ interpretations of the law, that impermissibly restrict the rights of individuals and entities to campaign on ballot referenda questions. The court struck down various provisions of the statute, and attorneys fees have also been awarded. -
Lafey v. Begin
Friend of the court brief challenging a state Board of Elections’ ruling that the hosting of a radio talk show by Cranston’s Mayor constituted an illegal campaign contribution under state election law. The defendant agreed not to enforce the ruling pending lower court consideration of state law issues raised by the case. -
Bilodeau v. Daly-Labelle
Defense representation of a South Kingstown resident sued for defamation by a political candidate for distributing a political flyer critical of the candidate. Shortly after a counter-claim was filed under the state’s SLAPP suit law and the plaintiff agreed to drop the suit.
