Face-Off! Pro v. Con 

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
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?
Schenck v. US (1919)—
“Clear and Present Danger”
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
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
“imminent lawless action”
Cohen v. California (1971)
“Symbolic Speech”—protects
the expression of emotion and
United States v. O’Brien
“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
Tinker v. Des Moines
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
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.