-
Schenck vs The United States
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47
During WW1, Schenck passed out flyers stating that the military draft violated the thirteenth amendment, he advised men to protest and disobey the draft. It was ruled that even though the event seemed very anti-American, the act was still protected under the thirteenth amendment since its freedom of press, speech and protest. -
Whitney vs California
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/274us357
Whitney was prosecuted for helping to organize a group that sought to effect economic and political change through the unlawful use of violence. Against popular standing the court ruled that Whitney violated no law and was protected under the first amendment clause of freedom of protest. -
Near vs Minnesota
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/283us697
The Saturday Press accused their local government officials of being associated with gangsters in their issue of he newspaper. They were then brought charges because it violated the public nuisance law. This was then brought to the Supreme court and it was decided that thy could not prosecute the paper under the first amendment and that they are unable to prevent publications in the paper before they are printed. -
Tinker vs Des Moines
https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-student-expression
The court case ruled in favor of the Tinker since the students were practicing a peaceful in school protest against the Vietnam war, which included black wrist bands with peace signs. The supreme court ruled that the students first amendment right were still intact since it didn't disrupt the educational process. -
Loewen v Turnipseed
https://www.crin.org/en/library/legal-database/loewen-v-turnipseed
The Mississippi State Textbook Purchasing Board refused to recommend the book Mississippi: Conflict and Change as a textbook for use in state schools on the grounds that it was too concerned with racial matters and too controversial. A lawsuit was brought upon by students and the authors of the text where it was decided that the school could not prevent purchasing the book since it was unjust and ruled in favor of the first am. -
Board of Education vs Pico
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-2043
The board of education at ITUF ordered that certain books be removed from its district's junior high and high school libraries. Students and parents were distraught since they felt that their rights were becoming violated. The supreme court eventually ruled that the school could not ban books based on their content, this was in regards to freedom of press and freedom of speech. -
Bethel school district no.403 vs Fraser
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Bethel-School-District-No-403-v-Fraser
Fraser gave a speech at his schools assembly nominating a student running for office. The school disciplined him because his speech involved vulgar language and sexual innuendos. Fraser fought this all the way to the supreme court. The court ruled that the first amendment right to freedom of speech did not protect obscene speech especially in a facility of education. -
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-hazelwood-v-kuhlmeier
Khulmeier authored two articles about divorce and teenage pregnancy for the paper. The principle did not deem this appropriate for school and prohibited Khulmeier from publishing them. It was then taken to the courts since it was violating the writers first amendment. the supreme court ruled in favor of the school since to some extent it was considered obscene speech. -
Poling vs Murphy
https://openjurist.org/872/f2d/757/poling-v-murphy
The question that presents its importance is wether the Constitution gives a high school student license to make admittedly "discourteous" and "rude" remarks about his schoolmasters in the course of a speech delivered at a school-sponsored assembly. After a very long debate it was ruled against Poling, finding that school officials had a legitimate interest in promoting civility and protecting the assistant principal's dignity. -
Campbell vs. St. Tammany Parish school board
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1388284.html
St. Tammany Parish school board removed the book "Voodoo and Hoodoo" from public libraries. The school board then allowed students to receive the book if a permission slip was signed. This idea was quickly overturned. Much like the previous cases The supreme court ruled it unconstitutional to remove a book based on the content inside since it violated the first amendment. -
Guiles vs Marineau
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1101375.html
Guiles wore a controversially obscene shirt to school involving drugs and alcohol which violated the schools policy. Guiles father and lawyers argued its both freedom of speech and protest, citing the Tinker case. The court ruled that the student is protected by both the first and fourteenth amendment. -
Morse vs Fredrick
http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-morse-v-frederick
At a school event, Fredrick presented a banner that stated " bong hits 4 Jesus". Similar to the Tinker case questioned protest and freedom of speech during school. Unlike the Tinker case, the ninth circuit court ruled in favor of principle Morse, since it did disrupt the educational process and the integrity of the school at a school sponsored event.
