3rd + Possible 4th Paragraph: Supreme Court Rulings
The have been plenty of public cases through history about free speech, and what constituted as free speech. There have been some that ended in the protection of the certain act, and some of the cases resulted in the act becoming illegal. One of the most notable cases of an act becoming illegal is Schenck v. United States, which took place in 1919. In Schenck's case, it was found that he was mailing letters that was obstructing recruitment for the army despite the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917. These letters caused insubordination within the military and navy while America was fighting Germany in World War I. While the evidence may not have been able to connect Schenck to the letters, Schenck's …show more content…
(Schenck). From Schenck case it made it illegal in the United States "To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., "[S]hout[ing] 'fire' in a crowded theater.")."(What Does). Schenck wasn't the only one to create an illegal action like this, but this is a case that is brought to American's attention today as it could be possible for someone to do something in this manner. Another case that created an illegal action was Roth v. United States in 1957. In Roth's case, Roth was under trail for conducting a business in New York that publicized and sold books, photographs, and magazines with obscene material; which was in violation the federal obscenity statute. (Roth). Even today it is a disgusting thought that anyone would consider to sell obscene material. In the past, though, it was noted that "Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press - either (1) under the First Amendment, as to the Federal Government, or (2) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the States." (Roth). So what Roth was accused of doing is not specified whether it was illegal to do so, but was considered as such because …show more content…
One of the cases is Texas v. Johnson in 1989. The case involved a man name Gregory Lee Johnson, and he was caught burning an American flag outside of a Dallas, Texas Republican National Convention to protest the policies of Ronald Reagan, eventually Johnson "was arrested and charged with violating a Texas statute that prevented the desecration of a venerated object, including the American flag, if such action were likely to incite anger in others." (Facts and Case). The Texan court was trying to convict Johnson of a crime, but Johnson's claim of him burning the flag as free speech eventually won over the Supreme Court. During the case it was noted that "The majority of the Court, according to Justice William Brennan, agreed with Johnson and held that flag burning constitutes a form of "symbolic speech" that is protected by the First Amendment. The majority noted that freedom of speech protects actions that society may find very offensive, but society's outrage alone is not justification for suppressing free speech." (Facts and Case). The Supreme Court was just in believing that the First Amendment protects speech that society may find offensive since if Johnson had lost the court case there may have been more cases that restricted American's freedom to ridiculous rates.If the dissent had won then we may never know where the restrictions would have stopped. It was during the dissent that
The have been plenty of public cases through history about free speech, and what constituted as free speech. There have been some that ended in the protection of the certain act, and some of the cases resulted in the act becoming illegal. One of the most notable cases of an act becoming illegal is Schenck v. United States, which took place in 1919. In Schenck's case, it was found that he was mailing letters that was obstructing recruitment for the army despite the Espionage Act of June 15, 1917. These letters caused insubordination within the military and navy while America was fighting Germany in World War I. While the evidence may not have been able to connect Schenck to the letters, Schenck's …show more content…
(Schenck). From Schenck case it made it illegal in the United States "To incite actions that would harm others (e.g., "[S]hout[ing] 'fire' in a crowded theater.")."(What Does). Schenck wasn't the only one to create an illegal action like this, but this is a case that is brought to American's attention today as it could be possible for someone to do something in this manner. Another case that created an illegal action was Roth v. United States in 1957. In Roth's case, Roth was under trail for conducting a business in New York that publicized and sold books, photographs, and magazines with obscene material; which was in violation the federal obscenity statute. (Roth). Even today it is a disgusting thought that anyone would consider to sell obscene material. In the past, though, it was noted that "Obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected freedom of speech or press - either (1) under the First Amendment, as to the Federal Government, or (2) under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as to the States." (Roth). So what Roth was accused of doing is not specified whether it was illegal to do so, but was considered as such because …show more content…
One of the cases is Texas v. Johnson in 1989. The case involved a man name Gregory Lee Johnson, and he was caught burning an American flag outside of a Dallas, Texas Republican National Convention to protest the policies of Ronald Reagan, eventually Johnson "was arrested and charged with violating a Texas statute that prevented the desecration of a venerated object, including the American flag, if such action were likely to incite anger in others." (Facts and Case). The Texan court was trying to convict Johnson of a crime, but Johnson's claim of him burning the flag as free speech eventually won over the Supreme Court. During the case it was noted that "The majority of the Court, according to Justice William Brennan, agreed with Johnson and held that flag burning constitutes a form of "symbolic speech" that is protected by the First Amendment. The majority noted that freedom of speech protects actions that society may find very offensive, but society's outrage alone is not justification for suppressing free speech." (Facts and Case). The Supreme Court was just in believing that the First Amendment protects speech that society may find offensive since if Johnson had lost the court case there may have been more cases that restricted American's freedom to ridiculous rates.If the dissent had won then we may never know where the restrictions would have stopped. It was during the dissent that