Freedom of Expression
1st Amendment
 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.[1]
1st Amendment
 Previous Interpretation:
 Citizens of the US, as stated in the constitution, are in
entitled to specific rights that include but are not limited to,
assembly, press, religion, and speech.
 Current Interpretation:
 Has stretched to include social media, burning of national
symbols, no prayer in school, symbolic gestures, sacrilege,
and war time protests.
Schenck v. United States 1918
 During World War I, Schenck mailed letters to draftees. The
letters suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong
motivated by the capitalist system of our government.
 Charged Schenck with conspiracy for obstructing military
recruitment.
 Question: Are Schenck's actions (words, expression)
protected by the free speech clause of the First
Amendment?
 Conclusion: Schenck was not protected in this situation. The
character of every act depends on the circumstances.
 “…a clear and present danger that they will bring about the
substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."
 US won.
Gitlow v. New York 1922
 Gitlow published a communist manifesto for distribution in the
United States.
1
9
2
2
 Gitlow was charged with plotting to overthrow the United States
government.(Criminal Anarchy). The court upheld Gitlow’s
conviction.
 Ironically, the ruling expanded free speech protections for
individuals by saying the states could not restrict free speech.
 Question: Is the New York law punishing advocacy to overthrow the
government by force an unconstitutional violation of the free speech
clause of the First Amendment?
 Conclusion: State governments were not allowed to deny their
residents the civil and human rights expressed within Constitution.
States had abused their powers. Gitlow was also found guilty of
accused crimes.
 New York won.
Schneider v. New Jersey 1939
1
9
3
9
 A citizen has the right to distribute information to others on
the public streets.
 The appellants were charged with a violation of local
ordinance that barred persons from distributing handbills on
public streets or handing them out door-to-door.
 Question: Do the interests of cities in reducing littering
justify encroachments upon the First Amendment by
banning the hand-to-hand distribution of pamphlets in
public places and private residences?
 Conclusion: No. The cities could regulate dishonest
pamphleteering, but could not outlaw the citizen's attempt
to pass information to another citizen through the means of
passing out written documents.
 Schneider won.
Tinker v. Des Moines 1968
 Case involving three minors who wore arm bands to school
and were sent home. Sued through their parents.
1
9
6
8
 Question: Does a prohibition against the wearing of
armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest,
violate the students' freedom of speech protections
guaranteed by the First Amendment?
 Conclusion: Yes. The school officials must have been able to
prove that the conduct in question would “materially and
substantially interfere” with the operation of the school.
 A decision by the United States Supreme Court that defined
the constitutional rights of students in U.S. public schools.
 The Tinker case is still used by courts today to determine
whether a school's disciplinary actions violate students' First
Amendment rights.
 Tinker won.
United States v. O’Brien 1968
1
9
6
8
 David O'Brien burned his draft card at a Boston
courthouse as opposition to war.
 He was convicted under a federal law that made the
destruction or mutilation of drafts card a crime.
 Question: Was the law an unconstitutional infringement
of O'Brien's freedom of speech?
 Conclusion: No. The governmental interest (military
draft) is unrelated to the suppression of free expression
and is required of all men over 18.
 US won.
Miller v. California 1971
 Miller was charged with mailing obscene material to nonparticipating citizens.
1
9
7
1
 Miller was found guilty of the misdemeanor of
distributing material that could be considered to be
objectionable in nature.
 Question: Is the sale and distribution of obscene
materials by mail protected under the First
Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee?
 Conclusion: No. The Court rejected the "utterly without
redeeming social value" test of the Memoirs decision.
 Set the standard for obscene materials in later cases.
 California won.
Wooley v. Maynard 1977
 A New Hampshire law required all vehicles to bear license plates
containing the state motto "Live Free or Die."
1
9
7
7
 George Maynard, a Jehovah's Witness, found the motto to be
contrary to his religious and political beliefs and cut the words "or
Die" off his plate.
 Maynard was convicted of violating the state law and was fined and
jailed.
 Question: Did the New Hampshire law unconstitutionally interfere
with the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment?
 Conclusion: Yes. The Court held that the State's interests in
requiring the motto did not outweigh free speech principles under
the First Amendment, including "the right of individuals to hold a
point of view different from the majority and to refuse to foster. .
.an idea they find morally objectionable.“
 Maynard Won.
Texas v. Johnson 1989
 Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a
means of protest against Reagan administration policies.
1
9
8
9
 Question: Is the desecration of an American flag, by
burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected
under the First Amendment?
 Conclusion: Yes. The Court held that Johnson's burning
of a flag was protected expression under the First
Amendment.
 “…the Government may not prohibit the expression of an
idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive
or disagreeable.“
 Johnson won.
United States v. Eichman 1990
1
9
9
0
 Eichman burned a flag on the steps of the US capital
protesting governments domestic and foreign.
 In 1989, Congress passed the Flag Protection Act.
 Question: Did the Act violate freedom of expression
protected by the First Amendment?
 Conclusion: No. Allowing the flag to be burned in a
disposal ceremony but prohibiting protestors from
setting it ablaze at a political protest were of the same
interest.
 Eichman won.
Virginia v. Black 2003
2
0
0
3
 Barry Black, Richard Elliott, and Jonathan O'Mara were
convicted separately of violating a Virginia statute by
burning a cross in public.
 Question: Does the Commonwealth of Virginia's crossburning statute, which prohibits the burning of a cross
with the intent of intimidating any person or group of
persons, violate the First Amendment?
 Conclusion: Yes. Cross-burning statute is
unconstitutional; Virginia statute is unconstitutional.
 Virginia won.
Timeline From The Early Republic
To Present Day
Tinker v.
D.M.I.C.S.D.
Schenck v.
US
1918
Schneider
v. New
Jersey
1922
Gitlow v.
New York
1939
US v.
O’Brien
1968
Wooley v.
Maryland
1971 1977
Miller v.
California
Texas v.
Johnson
Virginia
v. Black
1988 19891990 2003
Texas v.
Johnson
US v.
Eichman
Cartoons
Multiple Choice Questions
 Which case declared the statement, “…a clear and
present danger that they will bring about the substantive
evils that Congress has a right to prevent." ?
 Schneider v. New Jersey 1939
 Virginia v. Black 2003
 Miller v. California 1971
 Schenck v. United States 1918
Multiple Choice Questions
 In 1990, which case was ruled where the burning of the
national flag was constitutional?
 United States v. Eichman
 Wooley v. Maynard
 Schenck v. United States
 Gitlow v. New York
Multiple Choice Questions
 Which case stated that “…the Government may not
prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society
finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.“?
 United States v. Eichman
 Wooley v. Maynard
 Schenck v. United States
 Texas v. Johnson
Multiple Choice Questions
 The Court held that the State's interests in requiring the
motto did not outweigh free speech principles under the
First Amendment, including "the right of individuals to
hold a point of view different from the majority and to
refuse to foster. . .an idea they find morally
objectionable.“ Which case was this?
 United States v. Eichman
 Wooley v. Maynard
 Schenck v. United States
 Gitlow v. New York
Multiple Choice Questions
 The Court rejected the "utterly without redeeming social
value" test of the Memoirs decision. Which case was
this?
 Schneider v. New Jersey 1939
 Virginia v. Black 2003
 Miller v. California 1971
 Schenck v. United States 1918
Free Response Question
 Choose 2 out of the 4 cases and define what happened,
explain the results, and how it applied to todays
standards.
 Schneider v. New Jersey 1939
 Virginia v. Black 2003
 Miller v. California 1971
 Schenck v. United States 1918
Virginia v. Black 2003
 Barry Black, Richard Elliott, and Jonathan O'Mara were
convicted separately of violating a Virginia statute by
burning a cross in public.
 It was argued that the laws prohibiting the public from
burning crosses were unconstitutional and violated the
1st amendment. The courts agreed and they sided with
Black.
 It’s applied to today through religious freedoms and
liberties. People are able to express their beliefs without
the prosecution from the state and national
governments.
Miller v. California 1971
 Miller was charged with mailing obscene material to nonparticipating citizens. Was vacated and remanded in an
effort to shift the burden of obscenity determinations to
the state and local courts. Marvin Miller was found
guilty of the misdemeanor of distributing material that
could be considered to be objectionable in nature.
 The Court rejected the "utterly without redeeming social
value" test of the Memoirs decision.
 Set the standard for obscene materials in later cases.
Works Cited

"Western Civilization and Culture." Western Civilization and Culture.Web. 12
Sept. 2014.
http://westerncivilizationandculture.blogspot.com

Keefe, Mike. "Supreme on Free Speech." Intoon. Running Meter Press,Web. 12
Sept. 2014.
http://www.intoon.com/cartoons.cfm/id/81122

MILLER v. CALIFORNIA. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.
12 September 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/19701979/1971/1971_70_73>.

VIRGINIA v. BLACK. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 12
September 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/20002009/2002/2002_01_1107>.

UNITED STATES v. EICHMAN. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of
Law. 10 September 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/19801989/1989/1989_89_1433>.

TEXAS v. JOHNSON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 12
September 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/19801989/1988/1988_88_155>.

WOOLEY v. MAYNARD. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.
10 September 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/19701979/1976/1976_75_1453>.
Works Cited

TINKER v. DES MOINES INDEPENDENT COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT. The Oyez
Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 12 September 2014.
<http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21>.

SCHENCK v. UNITED STATES. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.
14 September 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1918/1918_437>.

GITLOW v. NEW YORK. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 14
September 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1922/1922_19>.

SCHNEIDER v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College
of Law. 10 September 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/19011939/1939/1939_11>.

WOOLEY v. MAYNARD. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 10
September 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_1453>.

UNITED STATES v. O'BRIEN. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 10
September 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_232>.

UNITED STATES v. O'BRIEN. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 10
September 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_232>