Timeline Project

  • Schenck v. United States

    Schenck v. United States
    https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47 The con-draft leaflets urged the public to disobey the draft, but advised only peaceful action. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. Schenck and Baer were convicted of violating this law and appealed on the grounds that the statute violated the First Amendment.
  • Whitney v. California

    Whitney v. California
    https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/274us357 Charlotte Anita Whitney was prosecuted under California’s Criminal Syndicalism Act for helping to organize a group that sought to effect economic and political change through the unlawful use of violence. Whitney argued that she had not intended the organization to act this way and did not plan to aid it in those objectives. She claimed the California law violated the First Amendment.
  • Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

    Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
    https://judiciallearningcenter.org/your-1st-amendment-rights/
    Students planned to wear black armbands to school to protest the fighting but the principal found out and told the students they would be suspended if they wore the armbands. A U.S. district court sided with the school, ruling that wearing armbands could disrupt learning. The United States Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision in favor of the students. The high court agreed that students' free rights should be protected.
  • New York Times Company v. United States

    New York Times Company v. United States
    https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/1873 In what became known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. The President argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. This case was decided together with United States v. Washington Post Co.
  • Wooley v. Maynard

    Wooley v. Maynard
    https://www.oyez.org/cases/1976/75-1453 A New Hampshire law required all noncommercial vehicles to bear license plates containing the state motto "Live Free or Die." 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 subsequently fined and given a jail sentence.
  • Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico

    Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico
    https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-2043
    The Island Trees Union Free School District's Board of Education (the "Board"), ordered that certain books be removed from its district's junior high and high school libraries. In support of its actions, the Board said such books were: "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy." The Board petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.
  • New York v. Ferber

    New York v. Ferber
    https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/81-55 A New York child pornography law prohibited persons from knowingly promoting sexual performances by children under the age of sixteen by distributing material which depicts such performances.
  • Bethel School District v. Fraser

    Bethel School District v. Fraser
    https://judiciallearningcenter.org/your-1st-amendment-rights/
    At a school assembly, Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. In his speech, Fraser used what some observers believed was a graphic sexual metaphor to promote his friend. Bethel High School enforced a rule prohibiting conduct which "substantially interferes with the educational process . . . including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." Fraser was suspended from school for two days.
  • Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

    Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
    https://judiciallearningcenter.org/your-1st-amendment-rights/
    The school-sponsored newspaper of Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by students. In May 1983, Robert E. Reynolds, the school principal, received the pages proofs for the May issue. Reynolds found two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and ordered that the pages be withheld from publication. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood East students brought the case to court.
  • Sable Communications of California, Inc v. FCC

    Sable Communications of California, Inc v. FCC
    https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/88-515
    In 1988, Congress amended the Communications Act of 1934 to ban indecent and obscene interstate commercial phone messages. Sable Communications had been in the dial-a-porn business since 1983. A judge in District Court upheld the ban on obscene messages, but enjoined the Act's enforcement against indecent ones.
  • United States, et al. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.

    United States, et al. v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.
    https://www.oyez.org/cases/1999/98-1682
    The school-sponsored newspaper of Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by students. In May 1983, Robert E. Reynolds, the school principal, received the pages proofs for the May 13 issue. Reynolds found two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be withheld from publication. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood East students brought the case to court.
  • Morse v. Frederick

    Morse v. Frederick
    https://judiciallearningcenter.org/your-1st-amendment-rights/
    At a school-supervised event, Joseph Frederick held up a banner with the message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," a slang reference to marijuana smoking. Principal Deborah Morse took away the banner and suspended Frederick for ten days. She justified her actions by citing the school's policy against the display of material that promotes the use of illegal drugs.