FaceOff Pro v Con Legalize Streaking Hate groups

Face-Off! Pro v. Con

Legalize Streaking!

Hate groups should be illegal

EHS should have school uniforms

Mr. Walsh and Mr. Jackson should approve the graduation speech beforehand

Rush Limbaugh should be arrested for referring to “Imam Obama”

Harry Potter books and movies should be banned from school libraries

Why do we protect free expression?

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.

Freedom of Speech Why do we so value the freedom of expression?

What is not freedom of speech?

How is our society shaped by the First Amendment?

Does war change the “rules”?

Schenck v. US (1919)— “Clear and Present Danger”

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) Some forms of expression--among them obscenity and fighting words--do not convey ideas and thus are not subject to First Amendment protection. In this case, Chaplinsky uttered fighting words, i. e. , words that "inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. "

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

“imminent lawless action”

Cohen v. California (1971)

“Symbolic Speech”—protects the expression of emotion and ideas

United States v. O’Brien (1968)

“narrowly tailored”

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie (1977)

Skokie v. . • The Courts decided in favor of the National Socialist Party of America. Other groups were allowed to march without paying the bond; therefore, the law could not discriminate against a specific group. The courts supported a “market place of ideas. ”

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969) The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment. School environments imply limitations on free expression, but here the principals lacked justification for imposing any such limits. The principals had failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline.

Morse v. Frederick (2007)

Chief Justice John Robert’s opinion held that although students have some freedom regarding political speech while at school, this right does not extend to pro-drug messages that undermine the school’s important mission to discourage drug use. School Speech?

R. A. V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)

R. A. V v St. Paul In a 9 -to-0 vote, the justices held the ordinance invalid on its face because "it prohibits otherwise permitted speech solely on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses. " The First Amendment prevents government from punishing speech and expressive conduct because it disapproves of the ideas expressed. Under the ordinance, for example, one could hold up a sign declaring all anti-semites are motherfuckers but not that all Jews are motherfuckers. Government has no authority "to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow the Marquis of Queensbury Rules. "

R. A. V. v St. Paul (1992)

Wisconsin v Mitchell (1993)

Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993) the Court found that the Wisconsin statute paralleled antidiscrimination laws which had been found to comply with the First Amendment. It also determined that the consequences for the victim and the community tended to be more severe, when the victim of a crime was chosen on account of his or her race. Thus, when the Wisconsin statute increased the sentence for such crimes, it was not punishing the defendant for his or her bigoted beliefs or statements, but rather the predicted ramifications of his or her crime.

Name 3 ways the courts have restricted speech. {