• 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.

We’re ashamed
George Bush is from
Texas!!!

• “Compelling government interest” AND
• Least restrictive law possible to meet that interest.

I want you to take out
Sonny the
Snitch…

YOUR MOMMA IS
SO UGLY, I
COULD BARELY
TAKE HER ON A
DATE!
AT LEAST I
DON’T HAVE A
NASTY
MULLET!!!
HOW DARE YOU MOCK MY MULLET!?!?!?
THEM’S

• “Likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and…cause a breach of the peace.”
• Words that have “a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the” listener, when spoken directly to him.
No modern case has declared any speech to be “Fighting Words.”

• Teaching of forceful overthrow of government, AND
• Instructions or directions on how to revolt

• NOT OK for gov’t to ban outright
• But the expression cannot be a direct threat
• It IS OK for government to say hateful motive = more jail time

• Public Official
– Actual malice
• Public Figure
– What makes them
“public”?
• Private Person
– See you in court!
Truth is always a defense!!!

• “Content neutral”
– CANNOT be used to suppress a particular idea, and must be applied to ALL speakers
• “Narrowly tailored” to achieve “significant government interest”
– Interest CANOT be to suppress an idea
• Other avenues of expressing the viewpoint must be available

• Appeals to “prurient interest” (causes lust)
• “Patently offensive” description of defined sexual conduct
• No serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

• Communication which “proposes a commercial transaction” (sometimes a hard question!)
• Protected, but subject to more regulation

The Case of the Student Protesters (#1)
Students are protesting the fact that their high school serves meat in the cafeteria, because they believe killing animals for food is murder. They never skip class to protest, but they often protest in the middle of the day during free periods. They are friendly, but they can sometimes get loud enough to hear in class. Teachers have complained that the sight of the protests outside of their classroom windows is distracting.
The principal, who has often said that animal rights protesters aren’t worth listening to, finally decided enough was enough, and banned all protesting on school grounds.
The students sued the school to be allowed to continue speaking out for the animals.
You are the judges in this case. Who should win?

The Case of the Black Armbands (#2)
A group of students, in order to protest the war in Iraq, decided to wear black armbands at school. They aren’t being disruptive, noisy, or saying anything about their opinions during class time. Between classes, however, they sometimes get into heated arguments with other students, many of whom are from military families. These discussions are emotional, but never have crossed the line into fighting.
The principal, who has a son fighting in Iraq, decided that he didn’t want to risk future disruption, and banned the armbands from the school. He then suggested (but did not require) that everyone wear American flag armbands, saying, “We can disagree about the war, but we should all support the troops and our country.”
The students sued the school to be allowed to continue wearing their armbands, saying their First Amendment rights had been violated.
You are the judges in this case. Who should win?

The Case of the Burning Cross (#3)
Jeffrey and his family, who are black, recently moved to Minneapolis, Minnesota in a (previously) all white neighborhood.
One night around midnight, Jeffrey heard some noise outside. He got up just in time to see his neighbor Bill lighting a large wooden cross on fire directly in front of his house.
Jeffrey called the police, who arrested Bill. Minnesota had a law which said:
“Anyone who burns a cross in a public place with the intent to threaten another based on his or her race, religion, or nationality, shall be guilty of a felony.”
Bill was convicted and sentenced to 6 months in jail, but he appealed the decision, claiming his First Amendment rights had been violated. He insists that he never intended to threaten anyone, and that he was simply making a statement of “white pride.” Other neighbors said at trial that Bill had burned crosses in the street even before Jeffrey’s family moved in.
You are the judges in this case. Who should win?

The Case of the St. Patrick’s Day Parade (#4)
Every year on St. Patrick’s day, Erin O’Malley, a private business woman, organizes and puts on a large parade through down town. The city issues a parade permit, but otherwise has nothing to do with the planning of the event or the selection of participants.
Usually, Erin chooses the floats and other participants for the parade on a first-come, firstserve basis. She’s been doing it this way for more than 10 years with no problems. Some of the groups who march express political opinions, ask people to vote for certain candidates, etc. Erin doesn’t always agree with them, but has never turned down a request to participate.
This year, though, a group of abortion rights activists called KAL (Keep Abortion Legal) have applied to march in the parade. Erin is a devoted Catholic, and thinks abortion is morally wrong. She told KAL that she couldn’t in good conscience be associated with their group.
KAL sued the city, saying that because the parade was on public streets, and the city issued a permit, closed the streets for the event, and provided extra police for security, Erin was not acting as a private person. KAL argued that they therefore had a right to march in the parade, and that they could not be discriminated against for their viewpoint.
You are the judges in this case. Who should win?

The Case of the School Newspaper (#5)
Adam and Carla write for the high school newspaper. The principle usually looks it over before the paper goes to the publishers, but has never before said anything about the content of the articles.
In the last issue, however, the principal pulled two articles – one each from Adam and Carla. One article was about divorce, and described (without naming any names) several students and their experiences with their parents’ divorce. The other article was an opinion piece strongly against gay marriage.
The principal felt that the divorce article put other students’ privacy in danger. He also believed that the article on gay marriage was simply inappropriate for a high school newspaper, and besides, he thought Carla’s opinion on the subject was ignorant, offensive, and wrong.
The students sued the school, saying their free speech rights had been violated.
The principal says he has a strong interest in maintaining good order and discipline in the school, and that includes protecting privacy and not allowing ageinappropriate discussions.
You are the judges in this case. Who should win?