Free Speech case application

The main point of THIS case is that schools can limit the contents of student newspapers because they are considered extensions of the curriculum and not true “public forums.”

• Schenck v US

• Terminiello v. Chicago

• Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

• Morse v. Frederick

THIS case dealt with the suspension of a student after he used “lewd” speech. The student “won” at the district and circuit courts, but lost at the Supreme Court, as the Court asserted that “schools are responsible for instilling certain values.”

• Snyder v. Phelps

• Brandenburg v. Ohio

• Bethel v. Fraser

• Tinker v. DesMoines

This 1969 case involved a KKK member who promised to seek “revengeance” (his spelling) against different non-white groups. Because he was charged with advocating violence, SCOTUS defined “imminent, lawless action” in place of “clear and present danger” as a limitation on free speech.

• Snyder v. Phelps

• Brandenburg v. Ohio

• Bethel v. Fraser

• Tinker v. DesMoines

THIS case resulted in the Court’s reasoning that schools must decide free speech limitations on a case-by-case basis. Although it was another step toward limiting free speech, the Court made it clear that the school’s anti-drug message would supersede the freedom to display a Bong Hits for Jesus banner.

• Bethel v. Fraser

• Schenck v. US

• New York Times v. Sullivan

• Morse v. Frederick

The case of Tinker v. DesMoines involved ALL of the following except:

• the wearing of black armbands in protest of the Vietnam war

• the disruption of the school day as the Tinkers faced counter-protestors

• the protection of 1st Amendment rights via “symbolic speech.”

• The assertion by the Court that students “do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse gate.”

THIS case involved the wearing of a t-shirt that read, “F- the Draft.” The court reasoned that there was no evidence that people in substantial numbers would be provoked into some kind of physical action by the words on his jacket. (No “clear and present” and no “fighting words.”) Hence, his speech could not be limited.

• Cohen v. California

• Texas v. Johnson

• Petraeus v. Jones

• Abrams v. US

In Miller v. California, the 3 part obscenity test included ALL of the following except:

• The work appeals to prurient (appealing to sexual desire) interest

• The work shows sexual conduct or excretory functions in an offensive way

• The work involves the 7 lewd or profane terms that are banned by the FCC.

• The material lacks literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.