-
Patterson v Colorado
In Patterson v. Colorado its first free-press case the U.S. Supreme Court determines it does not have jurisdiction to review the conviction of U.S. senator and Denver newspaper publisher Thomas Patterson for articles and a cartoon that criticized the state supreme court. The Court writes that what constitutes contempt, as well as the time during which it may be committed, is a matter of local law. -
Schenck v U.S.
In Schenck v. U.S., U.S. Supreme Court Justice Holmes sets forth his clear and present-danger test whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has the right to prevent. Schenck and others had been accused of urging draftees to oppose the draft and “not submit to intimidation. -
Debs v U.S.
In Debs v. U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court upholds the conviction of socialist and presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs under the Espionage Act for making speeches opposing World War I. Justice Holmes claims to apply the “clear and present danger” test however, he phrases it as requiring that Debs’ words have a natural tendency and reasonably probable effect of obstructing recruitment. -
Abrams v United States
The U.S. Supreme Court upholds the convictions of five individuals charged with violating the Espionage Act in Abrams v. United States. The individuals had circulated pamphlets critical of the U.S. government and its involvement in World War I. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes writes that “the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas. -
Gitlow v New York
In Gitlow v. New York, the U.S. Supreme Court upholds under the New York criminal anarchy statute Benjamin Gitlow’s conviction for writing and distributing “The Left Wing Manifesto.” The Court concludes, however, that the free-speech clause of the First Amendment applies to the states through the due-process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. -
Stromberg v California
In Stromberg v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court reverses the state court conviction of Yetta Stromberg, 19-year-old female member of the Young Communist League, who violated a state law prohibiting the display of a red flag as “an emblem of opposition to the United States government.” Legal commentators cite this case as the first in which the Court recognizes that protected speech may be nonverbal, or a form of symbolic expression. -
Near v Minnesota
In Near v. Minnesota, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidates a permanent injunction against the publisher of The Saturday Press. The Court rules that the Minnesota statute granting state judges the power to enjoin as a nuisance any malicious, scandalous and defamatory newspaper, magazine or other periodical is the essence of censorship. The Court concluded that the primary aim of the First Amendment was to prevent prior restraints of the press. -
Thornhill v Alabama
In Thornhill v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down an Alabama law prohibiting loitering and picketing “without a just cause or legal excuse” near businesses. The freedom of speech and of the press guaranteed by the Constitution embraces at the least the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully all matters of public concern without previous restraint or fear of subsequent punishment. -
Chaplinsky v New Hampshire
The U.S. Supreme Court determines “fighting words” are not protected by the First Amendment. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Court defines “fighting words” as “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of peace.” The Court states that such words are “no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed. -
Plessy v Ferguson
The Supreme Court unanimously overturns its 1896 ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson that “separate but equal” is constitutional and rules that segregation violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection
clause. In Brown v. Board of Education, the court holds that racially segregated schools are inherently unequal. The court’s opinion, written by Chief Justice Earl Warren, says that to segregate students because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status.
