Speech, Expression, and Assembly Flashcards

1
Q

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

INCORPORATION CASE

A

The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from infringing free speech, but the defendant was properly convicted under New York’s Criminal Anarchy Law because he disseminated newspapers that advocated the violent overthrow of the government.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Schenck v. U.S. (1919)

A

Defendant’s criticism of the draft was not protected by the First Amendment, because it created a “clear and present danger” to the enlistment and recruiting service of the U.S. armed forces during a state of war.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

A

Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute violated the First Amendment, as applied to the state through the Fourteenth, because it broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence rather than the constitutionally unprotected incitement to imminent lawless action.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

A

The Freedom of the Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

McCutcheon v. FEC (2014)

A

Aggregate contribution limits to campaign finance violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

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

A

The Supreme Court held the St. Paul ordinance unconstitutional. The ordinance applies to fighting words only as they insult or provoke “on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.” The First Amendment does not permit St. Paul to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Virginia v. Black (2003)

A

Virginia’s statute against cross burning is unconstitutional because it places the burden of proof on the defendant to demonstrate that he or she did not intend the cross burning as intimidation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Wisconsin v. Mitchell (1993)

A

Enhanced sentencing for bias-motivated crimes does not violate a defendant’s First Amendment rights.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Cohen v. California (1971)

A

The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, prohibits states from making the public display of a single four-letter expletive a criminal offense, without a more specific and compelling reason than a general tendency to disturb the peace.

-“Fuck the draft”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

U.S. v. O’Brien (1968)

A

A criminal prohibition against burning draft cards did not violate the First Amendment, because its effect on speech was only incidental, and it was justified by the significant government interest in maintaining an efficient and effective military draft system.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

O’Brien 4-Part test

A
  1. Is the regulation within Congress’s authority to enact?
  2. Does the regulation further a legitimate governmental interest?
  3. Is the regulation unrelated to the suppression of speech?
  4. Is the regulation only an incidental restriction on speech?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

W. Virginia Bd. of Education v. Barnette (1943)

A

The Free Speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits public schools from forcing students to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

A

A statute that criminalizes the desecration of the American flag violates the First Amendment.

-desecration (to damage a holy place or object)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Adderley v. Florida (1966)

A

Because a jail facility is not a public forum and a state may regulate the use of its property, the First Amendment rights of the protesters were not violated.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

NAACP v. Alabama (1958)

A
  • Held that “Immunity from state scrutiny of petitioner’s membership lists is here so related to the right of petitioner’s members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in doing so as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment”
  • And that freedom to associate with organizations dedicated to the “advancement of beliefs and ideas” is an inseparable part of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980)

A

The Court unanimously held that California could under its own state constitution permit the distribution of pamphlets and petitions in shopping malls and confer greater freedom of expression than the Court does when interpreting and applying the First Amendment.

17
Q

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston (1995)

A

Private citizens organizing a public demonstration may not be compelled by the state to include groups who impart a message the organizers do not want to be included in their demonstration

18
Q

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)

A

A private organization is allowed, under certain criteria, to exclude a person from membership through their First Amendment right to freedom of association in spite of state anti-discrimination laws.

19
Q

Snyder v. Phelps (2011)

A

Court upheld First Amendment protection for picketers at military funerals in protest of tolerance for homosexuals, particularly in the military.

20
Q

Nationalist Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977)

A

If a state seeks to impose an injunction in violation of First Amendment rights, it must provide strict procedural safeguards, including immediate appellate review.

21
Q

Walker v. Texas Divisions, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. (2015)

A

Court held that license plates are government speech and are consequently more easily regulated/subjected to content restrictions than private speech under the First Amendment.