-
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
A court decided that the first amendment does not apply to “fighting words”, which is defined as language that incites violence or causes immediate breach of peace. Effect: People couldn’t just say anything they wanted and there was a precedent set of examining the first amendment and what it should protect. -
Tinker v. Des Moines
Students had began wearing black armbands to school to silently protest the Vietnam War. The SCOTUS decided that students were allowed to protest in school so long as they did not cause ample disruption to educational proceedings. Effect: This case set a standard called the “Tinker Standard” which which said that in cases regarding free speech at school, they were to be decided based on if they caused significant disruption to the learning environment. -
New York Times Company v. United States
The Nixon Administration was ruled to be in violation of the First Amendment when they tried to censor publications such as the NYT for publishing information on the Vietnam War. The White House said that if the information was published, it would cause “grave and irreparable damage”. Effect: The First Amendment, in regards to the press, was expanded; newspapers were protected on reporting about topics that the government deemed sensitive in nature. -
Miller v. California
The Supreme Court ruled that a man’s First Amendment had not been violated when he was arrested for mass-advertising his sale of adult material. Effect: The term “obscenity” was redefined to lacking “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”. -
Wooley v. Maynard
The SCOTUS ruled that a state could not penalize a man for failing to display the state’s motto on his license plate. Wooley, found the words “Or Die” to contrast his religion and subsequently removed them from his license plate. Effect: The First Amendment, in regards to religion, was extended to protection of materials (including the destruction of them) such as a license plate. -
Island Trees School District v. Pico
The SCOTUS maintained that schools have the ability to censor literature based on the content and appropriateness for students. Their reasoning was that the books are not censored from students for life, just while in school. Effect: Schools gained more standing in regards to the First Amendment because there was a lot of advancement of the First Amendment for students, but not for schools. -
Texas v. Johnson
The SCOTUS ruled that flag-burning in legal under the First Amendment because it is a method of expressing one’s political opinions. Effect: People began to participate in increasingly-radical methods of political protests and they were protecting in doing so. -
Snyder v. Phelps
The Supreme Court ruled that it is constitution for people to protest near military funerals. Effect: This ensured that all forms of protest, as long as they were peaceful and orderly, would be permitted in public, regardless if they are perceived as disrespectful. -
Virginia v. Black
The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that all cross-burning is illegal, regardless of if it does not incite fear or violence. -
United States v. American Library Association
The SCOTUS ruled that public schools, and public libraries who receive federal funding, must install internet software that censors pornographic content so kids cannot access it. Effect: Gave the federal gov’t leverage in the sense that they could withhold funding for groups if they do not comply with certain wishes. -
Morse v. Frederick
A student was suspended for having a sign that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” on school property. The school’s decision was upheld, the SCOTUS citing that the sign was in clear contrast to the public school’s values. Effect: This cemented the Tinker standard as the method of ruling on cases of schools and the First Amendment. -
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
A same-sex couple was denied a cake for their wedding; the baker said he refused to make them a cake because their marriage was against his religion. Effect: Now people may be able to deny same-sex couples services as a result of their religion.
