First Amendment Freedoms and Supreme Court Cases

• The Supreme Court sets limits on what is acceptable under the First Amendment
• The learning objectives include explaining how the U.S. Constitution protects individual liberties, liberties protected in the Bill of Rights, Supreme Court's interpretation of the First and Second Amendments commitment to individual liberty and how the Supreme Court balances individual freedom with laws and enforcement
• The First Amendment states "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."

Engel v. Vitale

• Government-directed prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
• This is true even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and students may remain silent or be excused during its recitation

Wisconsin v. Yoder

• The Wisconsin Compulsory School Attendance Law violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment
• Requiring attendance past the eighth grade interfered with the right of Amish parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children
• The Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed this decision

Reynolds v. United States

• The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects the right to hold any religious belief
• The clause does not protect the right to engage in any religious activity whatsoever
• Justice Waite stated polygamy is "odious among the northern and western nations of Europe," and it is almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people
• The Court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might argue that human sacrifice or bride burning was a part of their religion
• "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the and, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

• The Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress religious expression

Miller v. California

• Obscene materials are defined as those that the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find appeal to prurient interest; that depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions defined by applicable state law; and that the work as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
• Obscenity is not protected speech

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

• Fighting Words are not protected by the Constitution- these are words that provoke immediate violence and/or inflict injury
• Slander is not protected by the Constitution- this involves spreading false & malicious rumors that damage a person's reputation
• Chaplinsky vs NH set precedent for both categories

Schenck v. United States

• Schenck's words undermined (subverted) the authority of the U.S. and created a “clear and present danger” to the country
• Free speech that could cost the US financially is not protected
• This set precedent by Schenck vs US for the Clear and Present Danger test
• The Clear and Present Danger test has been overruled to the higher individual speech protection of “imminent lawless action” in Bradenburg v. Ohio

Tinker v. Des Moines

• Student speech may be limited if specific evidence exists that will “disrupt” the learning environment
• Black armbands in a public school do not disrupt the learning environment
• The Court upheld the ruling in favor of Tinker
• Neither "students nor teachers shed their constitutional right to freedom of speech at the schoolhouse gate..."
• "In order for the State, in the person of school officials, to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion, it must be able to show that its action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.”

Cox v. New Hampshire

• Question: Does prohibiting unlicensed parades violate the First Amendment guarantee of peaceful assembly?
• No, to create order and safety permits/approvals for assemblies are Constitutional if they are applied fairly

Freedom of Assembly

• Limitations on free assembly
• Time, place and manner- location and presentation must be appropriate
• Apparent purpose of demonstration must be peaceful
• Location must be able to safely accommodate demonstrators
• Demonstration must not try to cause a riot or subvert the government
• Prior Restraint- government can sometimes prevent a group from meeting if past assembly caused dangerous situations

Morse v Frederick

• Relates to events causing a substantial disruption

Freedom of the Press

• Limitations on free press (not protected by 1st Amendment)
• Libel- printing false and malicious rumors that damage a person's reputation
• "Injured" party must sue & prove in court the inaccuracy of statements or that press showed “reckless disregard for truth” and malice (intent to harm person) in order to receive court ordered money for damage to reputation

New York Times Co. v. US

• Prior Restraint (censorship)- government can try to get a court order to restrict a prepublished article only when national security is in danger or if it would pose a great threat to society
• There is a "heavy presumption against (government) prior restraint (censorship)”

Right to Petition the government

• Citizens can inform the government of discontent through petitions provided they feel that their rights have been violated

• Deborah Weisman graduated from Nathan Bishop Middle School in Providence, Rhode Island in June 1989

• For several years the school board and superintendent followed a policy of inviting members of the clergy to give invocations and benedictions at middle school and high school graduations

• A rabbi was invited by Principal Robert Lee to give a prayer at Weisman's graduation ceremony and was given guidelines to make the prayer inclusive

• Deborah Weisman's parents sued Principal Lee to prevent the rabbi from speaking

• The Supreme Court ruled that schools could not sponsor even non-denominational prayers

• In Engel v. Vitale and Lee v. Weisman the constitutional provision that was challenged was the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment

Selective Incorporation

• The process in which the provisions, protections and obligations of the Bill of Rights, one by one, is applied against state governments

Selective Incorporation- 14th Amendment

• Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside
• No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
• Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
• Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws