test Flashcards
slander
knowingly false information intended to harm someone (verbal)
libel
Published written knowingly false information intended to cause harm
Schenck v. US background
Charles Schenck violating Espionage Act of 1917 via 15,000 flyers telling to resist draft and peacefully protest, exercise and assert 1st amendment rights, first time SCOTUS punished speaker, lost case, free speech clause in question
1st amendment clauses (all abt free expression)
establishment
free exercise
speech
press
peaceful assembly
petition
Schenck v. US ruling
In times of war, gov. is allowed to chip away at free speech, test “clear and present danger” established
Brandenburg v. Ohio
Ohio law: Someone cannot endorse violence and terrorism
What abt free speech?
SCOTUS sides in favor of KKK guy bcz of new test that we use today, beyond mere words of advocacy to create a “high likelihood of imminent disorder or lawlessness,” what they said at that moment in a rural area did not create such a threat
Bigger than KKK guy, giving government ability to arrest based on simply disagreeableness or offensiveness
Texas v. Johnson
Gregory Lee Johnson burns flag taken from bank in Dallas in street to protest Nixon, arrested by 48/50 states criminalizing flag desecration
FREE SPEECH
Johnson wins in SCOTUS, just bcz smth is offensive or disagreeable does not make it illegal
West Virginia v. Barnette
West Virginia Board of Ed mandated flag salutes and pledge, family of Jehovahs witnesses refused, 6-3 decision overruled Minersville v. Gobitis, flag salutes unconstitutional to be MANDATED but cannot be forced
More than just pledge and salute, teachers cannot sponsor/force religious, political, or nationalistic beliefs (this is what it means to be a real american) in schools
Tinker v. Des Moines
School made policy 2 days prior to silent armband protest against Vietnam war that armbands would be taken off or suspended until taking off, freedom of speech challenged
Tinker v. Des Moines holding
7-2 for Tinker, armbands = speech, did not cause “material and substantial disruption,” kids can express themselves through attire and symbolic speech
Bethel holding
Schools can punish students due to vulgar or explicit language if “inconsistent with the fundamental nature of public education”
Morse holding
Bong hits 4 jesus
5-4 majority vote, school officials can prohibit students from speech/expression promoting illicit drug use
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Has to pass 3-pronged lemon test for religious private schools to be funded by public government
Wisconsin v. Yoder
Amish communities stop formal ed. after age 14, mode of life and religion inseparable and interdependent
Compulsory school attendance law up to age 16, Amish sue on grounds of free exercise
SCOTUS says that education gotten in the 2 years does not outweigh centuries of Amish deep-held convictions creating lawful and self-sufficient citizens and not having the community fall apart and therefore people cannot free exercise
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
in NY PRAYER by school, over speakers +w/teacher participating or appointing leader, a group opposing including stephen engel sued, said saying prayer violated Establishment clause, saying “God” made monotheistic religions and therefore denominational, students not doing it = they are singled out and they are forced to hear it, not exactly voluntary
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeyer
Article of school newspaper on teen pregnancy and divorce, PRIOR RESTRAINT principal censors newspaper before it comes out
legal as school-sponsored
NY Times v. US
This guy here Daniel Ellsberg former military analyst who works at the RAND Corporation details of decision-making plans in Vietnam and stuff abt Lyndon B. Johnson’s motivations in southeast asia vs. his public remarks as well as Nixon, Nixon filed restraining order, says it would undermine national security, presidents knew it wasnt going well vs. president saying that it is, courts stop publication using prior restraint
NY TImes v. US holding
If national security truly was at stake, prior restraint is possible, but people need to know truth and this would not undermine national security, journalists need to investigate and ability for people to know and put pressure on gov. to do something, people who break the law will not tell on themselves, we need to hold accountable and give info to make informed decisions
Bad tendency test
“Government may suppress any expression that has the tendency to incite crime or disrupt the public peace should be silenced.”
Least freedom, Gitlow v. New York, response to 1st red scare 1925
Clear and Probable Danger test (ASK SEPKO ABT NAME)
“Government can suppress any expression to avoid grave danger, even if probability of dangerous result was relatively scarce.”
Dennis v. US 1951, second red scare, 2nd least freedom
Clear and Present Danger test
“Government may suppress any expression only when there is clear and present danger that such speech will bring about harm.”
Schenck v. US, first time SCOTUS punished speaker based on content of speech instead of effect of speech
Imminent Lawless Action Test/Incitement Test/Brandenburg Test
“Government may suppress expression only if it goes beyond mere advocacy, or words, to create a high likelihood of imminent disorder or lawlessness.”
Brandenburg v. Ohio, KKK members speech in forest, no violence was actually committed, free from government despite uncertainty from citizens like KKK members not being punished
Civil liberties
Protections from the government
Palko v. CT
Formula of selective incorp., fundamental rights without which neither liberty nor justice could exist from 14th amendment due process clause
Near v. Minnesota
Freedom of press incorporated
Gitlow v. NY
Freedom of speech incorporated + Bad tendency test
Barron v. Baltimore
WHAARFS
Takings clause (private land seized for public use w/o adequate compensation) 5th amendment
Unincorporated amendments
3rd Amend. Quartering of soldiers, 5th amendment grand jury indictment provision, and 7th amendment provision of jury in civil trials
Lemon test
Secular legislative purpose
Secular impact (not advance or inhibit any religion)
Not create excessive gov. entanglement in religion
