1st Amendment Cases

  • Everson vs Board of Education

  • Brandenburg vs Ohio

    Brandenburg vs Ohio
    A leader of the KKK was arrested due to the broadcasting of his speeches because it advocated crime and terrorism or voluntary assembly of a group which is all against Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute. This was taken up by the Supreme Court and reviewed. The Court saw the statute against Petitioner as unconstitutional because the statute didn't specifically state the difference between teaching about force and gathering a group for violent actions.
  • Miller vs California

    Miller vs California
    Miller sent out brochures that had sexually explicit images on them to people who didn't even ask for them. These people contacted the police and he was charged with violating Cal. Penal Code 311(2a) which is the distribution of obscene matter. The Court deemed the material to escape the boundaries of obscene material in the First Amendment but it does fall under certain states' through the Fouteenth Amendment.
  • Hazelwood School District vs Kuhlmeier

    Hazelwood School District vs Kuhlmeier
    A school newspaper published an article on three pregnant students. The school principal showed concern that the article did not adequately safeguard the pregnant students' identity or the security of their boyfriends and parents and the content was unacceptable for the younger students. The newspaper staff filed a lawsuit against the principal in the US District Court of Eastern Missouri. The Court saw that the principal's actions were just and the school was entitled to censor the article.
  • Poling vs Murphy

    Poling vs Murphy
    Dean Poling, a presidential candidate for his senior class in Unicoi High, giving a speech for his campaign which was very rude. The school board had a problem with the content of his speech, so they removed him from the campaign. Poling then filed a case against the principal to the federal court. The court saw it against Poling stating that the incident went under the school curriculum so it doesn't go against the 1st amendment of free speech because it's under school policy.
  • Guiles vs Murphy

    Guiles vs Murphy
    Zachary Gulies, a 13 y/o owned a shirt of President George W. Bush that had images like cocaine and alcohol on it. His shirt created a conversation about if he should be allowed to wear this shirt. Marineau always asked Guiles to tape over the "explicit" content or change his shirt, but Guiles refused which got him a referral. The Court saw that Guiles's shirt didn't disrupt anyone so him receiving a referral and being asked to take off his shirt was aginst his rights and was unconstitutional.
  • Morse vs Frederick

    Morse vs Frederick
    A student made a banner for a school-sponsored event that said: "Bong Hits 4 Jesus". The principal told him to take it down because it seemed to promote illegal drug use, but he refused. He was suspended and this went to the state. At trial the student received immunity and this situation was seen to go against his First Amendment Rights by the state. This went to the Supreme Court and they saw it to be the opposite of the state's ruling because the banner went against school policies.
  • Citizens United vs FEC

    Citizens United vs FEC
    Citizens United published a film about a candidate for the presidency. The company wanted the film to be available within 30 days before the election and create ads. Citizens United sued the FEC challenging the constitutionality of a prohibition on independent corporation spending on electioneering activities because they were banned. The Court saw that the ban breached the 1st Amendment because the gov. was weak to overcome political representation as a non-profit or for-profit corporation.
  • Brown vs Entertainment Merchants Association76

    Brown vs Entertainment Merchants Association76
  • Elonis vs United States

    Elonis vs United States
    The wife of a KKK leader left him so as revenge he went to Facebook and published some self-styled rap lyrics which contained graphic content about his wife, co-workers, a kindergarten class, and law enforcement. He was charged with several counts of threats. The Petitioner challenged the decision because he felt it was under Freedom of Speech but the appellate court affirmed. The First Amendment required the Petitioner to understand that his rap was indeed threatening in nature.