(1942) [web]

F: Jehovah's witnesses were delivering anit-religious literature. They were arrested and called the officers "damned fascists".

I: Whether the groups speech is protected under the 1st Amendment.

H: No.

R: No 1st Amendment protection is given to "fighting words"--words that by their nature are individually directed at a viewer of close proximity and that may produce violence.

Ru: Context is important when determining whether speech will be granted full 1st Amendment protection (balancing test). Fighting words are not protected.

(1989) pp. 279-289

F: Johnson burned an American flag, and was tried tried under Texas' law against desicrating the flag.

I: Whether Johnson's burning of an American flag is a protected form of expression under the 1st Amendment.

H: Yes.

R: The court concluded that the State could not criminally sanction flag desecration in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity. It also held that the statute did not meet the State's goal of preventing breaches of the peace, since it was not drawn narrowly enough to encompass only those flag burnings that would likely result in a serious disturbance, and since the flag burning in this case did not threaten such a reaction.

Ru: Short of an extremely substantial government interst, expressive political speech is almost always protected under the 1st Amendment

(1971) 131-136

F: Man wore a jacket with the phrase "fuck the draft" into a courtroom. Charged with "disturbing the peace".

I: Whether this "speech" is protected under the 1st Amendment.

H: Yes.

R: The govenment may not prosecute simply because they find the message distasteful. The lookers could avert their eyes.

Ru: There is no test for "offensiveness". This idea is too subjective for the government to try to prosecute.

(1992) pp. 229-238

F: Teenagers in St. Paul burned a cross on the lawn of a black family. Prosecuted under a St. Paul law which prohibits the display of a symbol which one knows or has reason to know "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender."

I: Whether the St. Paul law violates the 1st Amendment.

H: Yes.

R: The ordinance was found to be facially unconstitutional because it imposes special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on the disfavored subjects of "race, color, creed, religion or gender." At the same time, it permits displays containing abusive invective if they are not addressed to those topics.

Ru: Picking sides of a view is a viewpoint-based regulation. Such regulations have been proven unconstitutional by the Court.

(1993) pp. 238-241

F: After watching a violent racial movie, some black youths beat up a white child. The state adds on 5 years to his sentence since the beating was racially-based. Mitchell tries to protect himself with R.A.V., saying that the addition of a more severe sentence is was based on his racial views.

I: Whether the state may add more severe penalties.

H: Yes.

R: Race-based crimes are qualitatively different from other crimes. Mitchell's actions are conduct, not speech.

Ru: Concerning pure conduct, it's OK to discriminate on viewpoint.