-
Schenck vs. United States (1919)
Schenck was accused of involvement to disregard the Espionage Act of 1917 by trying to cause disobedience in the military and to deter enrollment. Schenck and Baer were indicted for damaging this law and claimed in light of the fact that the resolution abused the First Amendment. The Court held that the Espionage Act didn't damage the First Amendment and was a fitting activity of Congress' wartime authority. -
Near v. Minnesota
In a Minneapolis paper called The Saturday Press, Jay Near and Howard Guildford blamed nearby authorities for being involved with gangsters. Authorities looked for a permanent order against The Saturday Press because it damaged the Public Nuisance Law since it was malicious. The law was any individual occupied with the business of consistently distributing a foul paper was liable of a disturbance. They ended up ruling in favor of Near because it was a violation of the first amendment. -
Slochower v. Board of Higher Education of New York City
NYC municipal charter provision needed discharge of any city employee who uses the 5th Amendment for protection against self-incrimination in a legally authorized inquiry. Slochower invoked this privilege in a congressional committee investigation into his past Communist Party membership. Despite his tenured status, which required notice and a hearing, the city terminated him immediately. The state trial court dismissed a motion to review the discharge and the Court of Appeals of NY affirmed. -
Brandenburg vs. Ohio
Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating crime, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform, as well as assembling with any society or group formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.The court held that hate speech is protected under the 1st Amendment as long as it does not cause violence. -
Todd v. Rochester Community Schools
This happened in 1972 in Rochester, Michigan. It violated the first and 14th amendment. A class in Rochester public high school studied a book called slaughterhouse five. The teacher, Mr. Todd, did not allege that the book was obscene. The defendants lost in an anonymous vote of 4-0. The book was also banned throughout the district of Rochester. -
Minarcini v. Strongsville (Ohio) City School District
The Strongsville City Board of Education rejected faculty recommendations to purchase Joseph Heller's Catch-22 and Kurt Vonnegut's God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater ordered the removal of Catch-22 and Vonnegut's Cat's Cradle from the library. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled against the School Board, upholding the students' First Amendment right to receive information and the librarian's right to spread it. -
Salvail v. Nashua Board of Education
MS magazine was removed from a New Hampshire high school library by the decision of the Nashua School Board. The U.S. District Court decided for the student, teacher, and adult residents who had brought action against the school board, the court ruling the defendants have failed to show a legitimate government interest sufficient to remove the magazine from the school library. -
Zykan v. Warsaw
A student brought a suit seeking to reverse school officials' decision to limit or prevent the use of certain textbooks, to remove a certain book from the school library, and to delete certain courses from the curriculum.The district court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the school board has the right to establish a curriculum on the basis of its own discretion. -
Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education
Parents and students brought this action challenging the mandatory use of certain textbooks on the ground that the books promoted certain values offensive to their religious beliefs. The U.S. Court rejected the plaintiffs' claim, finding that the Constitution does not require school curriculum to be revised substantially in order to accommodate religious beliefs. -
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
After a school principal removed two pages that had articles on teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on students from a newspaper, the student staff filed suit claiming violation of their 1st Amendment rights. The principal said that he was protecting the privacy of the pregnant students described, protecting younger students from sexual activity and birth control described, and protecting the school from a potential libel action.The Supreme Court ruled that the principal acted reasonably.
