Civics
The First Amendment: Restrictions on Speech and Religion*
Objective: Analyze the application and limitations of First Amendment guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion, and
identify the role of constitutional provisions and the Supreme Court in determining those applications and limitations.
Directions: Your group will be assigned to two cases, one concerning speech and the other religion. For each case you will also be
assigned one side of the argument to represent. You will present your arguments to your classmates, who will serve as the judges in
the case. To prepare, follow the steps below:
WHEN MAY SPEECH BE LIMITED?
Part 1 - Introductory Questions and Group Discussion
1.
Are there any circumstances under which you think speech should be limited? Why or why not?
2.
If the right to free speech comes in conflict with another right, should free speech enjoy a preferred status? Why or why
not?
Part 2 - Case Study
3.
Read over the speech case you’ve been assigned and respond to the questions at the end. You must argue the side you’ve
been assigned, whether you agree or not.
4.
You will present your arguments to the class, who will act as judges and make a decision.
WHEN MAY RELIGION BE LIMITED?
Part 1 - Introductory Questions and Discussion
1.
Why is the free exercise of religion and freedom from government imposition of religion important?
2.
If freedom of religion comes into conflict with another right, should freedom of religion enjoy a preferred status? Why or
why not?
Part 2 - Case Study
5.
Read over the cases you’ve been assigned and respond to the questions at the end. You must argue the side you’ve been
assigned, whether you agree or not. Remember to use the “Lemon Test” (p.88) in your response.
6.
You will present your arguments to the class, who will act as judges and make a decision.
Critical Thinking Score:
Advanced: All proficient criteria PLUS
o
specific use of Supreme Court decisions or actions
Proficient:
o
o
analyzes how the guarantees of free speech OR freedom of religion are applied and limited
specific use of Constitutional provisions
*ADAPTED FROM MATERIALS PROVIDED BY THE FREEDOM FORUM, THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT CENTER
WHEN MAY SPEECH BE LIMITED?
Case Study 1
Permits and demonstrations
A group of National Socialist Party of America members decided to hold a demonstration in a city with a large number of Jewish
residents, many of whom survived the Holocaust. The party members wanted to display the swastika, a symbol of Nazi beliefs that
for many people represents the Holocaust itself. The citizens of the city were not only deeply offended by the Nazis’ beliefs but
feared that violence would result if the National Socialist Party members were allowed to parade through their streets in uniform
and distribute materials “inciting and promoting hatred against Jews … .”
The city government passed several ordinances regulating public demonstrations. These ordinances required the organizers of any
parade or assembly that involved more than 50 persons to obtain insurance coverage. The ordinances also gave the city council the
authority to deny a permit for a demonstration if that demonstration might result in disorder. The council also banned
demonstrations by members of groups wearing military-style uniforms, as well as all demonstrations that “incite violence, hatred,
abuse, or hostility toward a person or group of persons by reasons or reference to religious, racial, ethnic, national, or religious
affiliation.” The National Socialist Party of America then sued, declaring the ordinances unconstitutionally interfered with their rights
to free speech.



Is this speech protected?
If not, what harm might occur as a result of the speech?
What value or right is conflicting with free speech in this case?
City Council
Why should the city council be allowed to pass all the
ordinances it did in response to this demonstration?
National Socialist Party of America
Why do the new ordinances interfere with the right to free
speech of the National Socialist Party of America?
Case Study 2
Obscene or indecent phone calls
The federal government passed a law making it illegal to offer commercial, interstate services that involved “obscene” or “indecent”
telephone communications. The law was aimed at “dial-a-porn” services. These services provide a taped, sexually explicit message
that is activated when customers dial a phone number. Customers are charged for the call. One company sued, claiming that the law
was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.



Is this speech protected?
If not, what harm might occur as a result of the speech?
What value or right is conflicting with free speech in this case?
The U.S. Government
Can the U.S. government regulate and ban these types of
phone calls as part of its power to regulate commerce?
Phone company providing pornographic phone services
Can phone companies provide this type of service under the
protection of freedom of expression?
Case Study 3
Student speech at school assemblies
At a voluntary school assembly, a public high school student delivered a speech nominating a candidate for student government
office. The school-sponsored activity was attended during the school day by approximately 600 students, many of whom were 14year-olds. The student used a graphic, sexual metaphor throughout the speech. The speech began, “I know a man who is firm — he’s
firm in his pants, he’s firm in his shirt, his character is firm — but most … of all, his belief in you, the students of Bethel, is firm.”
Prior to the assembly, two teachers had advised the student, Matthew Fraser, not to give the speech because it was inappropriate.
The next day the assistant principal notified him that his speech was in violation of the school’s “disruptive-conduct rule.” He was
given an opportunity to explain his conduct. After admitting he knew he was using explicit sexual innuendo, Fraser was suspended
and his name was removed from the list of potential graduation speakers.



Is this speech protected?
If not, what harm might occur as a result of the speech?
What value or right is conflicting with free speech in this case?
Bethel school district
Matthew Fraser
Can a school district have rules that prohibit the use of
‘inappropriate’ language?
Can Mr. Fraser give a speech that uses metaphorical language
that is protected as free speech?
WHEN MAY RELIGION BE LIMITED?
Case Study 4
Oregon Employment Division v. Smith (1990)
Alfred Smith and Galen Black were members of the Native American Church. Some of the church's rituals involve the use of peyote,
a cactus derivative containing the hallucinogen mescaline. The two men ingested peyote during religious rituals. As a result, they
were fired from their jobs at a private drug rehabilitation program for "work-related misconduct".
When Smith and Black filed for unemployment benefits, they were turned down, again because of their use of peyote, possession or
use of which was a crime according to Oregon law. Although drug use in religious ceremonies is exempted from criminal penalties by
federal law and the laws of 23 states, Oregon provided no such exemption. The men sued, arguing that the state had violated their
rights to free exercise of religion
1.
2.
Does Oregon's state law violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?
What value or right is conflicting with free exercise of religion in this case?
State of Oregon
How does requiring a drug test and banning individuals who
have a positive drug test from receiving unemployment
benefits not violate the free exercise of religion?
Smith
How does requiring a drug test and banning individuals who
have a positive drug test from receiving unemployment
benefits violate the free exercise of religion?
Case Study 5
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah (1993)
Members of the tiny Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye in the Florida city of Hialeah practice a religion that involves the sacrifice of
live animals such as pigeons, chickens, goats and lambs to commune with the "orishas", or spirits. The religion of Santeria, "the way
of the saints", originated in West Africa. When they were brought to Cuba as slaves, the Yoruba people blended their beliefs with
some Roman Catholic practices. Nearly 70,000 Cuban-Americans in south Florida practice Santeria, as do people in other cities
across the United States.
When the Church of Lukum Babalu Aye decided to establish a house of worship and other facilities in Hialeah in 1987, the city
council held an emergency session. It issued new zoning laws that banned animal sacrifices inside city limits. The new laws
specifically banned the killing of animals for ritual purposes. They exempted the killing of animals for food; for pest control; during
hunting, trapping and fishing seasons; for medical research; and by animal shelters for purposes of population control. The church
sued, claiming its religious freedoms had been violated by the new zoning laws.
1.
2.
May a city constitutionally enact ordinances that are designed to prohibit certain religious practices?
What value or right is conflicting with free exercise of religion in this case?
City of Hialeah
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye
How does banning the killing of animals for ritual or religious
purposes not violate the free exercise of religion?
How does banning the killing of animals for ritual or religious
purposes violate the free exercise of religion?
Case Study 6
Lee v. Weisman (1992)
A middle school in Providence, Rhode Island hosted a graduation ceremony during which a rabbi was invited to give a nondenominational prayer (the act or practice of praying to God). Deborah Weisman and her father objected to the reading of a prayer
by a religious figure, arguing it violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The school district countered that it was
voluntary because Deborah did not need to stand to participate in the prayer, and attendance at the ceremony was voluntary.
1.
2.
Can a public school have a religious leader give an ‘invocation prayer’ or benediction at a public school graduation
ceremony?
What value or right is conflicting with the establishment clause in this case?
School District (Lee)
Weisman
How does permitting an ‘invocation prayer’ or benediction at
a public school ceremony not violate the establishment
clause?
How does permitting an ‘invocation prayer’ or benediction at
a public school ceremony violate the establishment clause?