Gopo- Court Cases (Freedom Of Speech)

Front 1

Gitlow vs New York

Back 1

Deals With: Freedom of Expression
Case: Gitlow distributed pamphlets calling for establishment of socialism through strikes and class action; convicted under anti-anarchy law prohibiting initiating violent overthrow of government.
Ruling: Gitlow was not advocating the overthrow, only preaching the ideas.
NOTE: THE 1ST AMENDMENT APPLIES TO THE STATES

Front 2

Lee vs Weisman

Back 2

Deals With: Religion/Establishment Clause
Case: A rabbi speaker @ a middle school said "God of the free, hope of the brave" in speech; offended Weisman & daughter
Ruling: School prayer is forbidden; Lee (principal) forbidden to reference God.

Front 3

Engel vs Vitale

Back 3

Deals With: Religion/Establishment Clause
Case: NY authorized short non-denominational prayer to be said @ start of each school day; prayer was voluntary
Ruling: Unconstitutional b/c by approving prayer it approves religion, which is forbidden under the establishment clause.

Front 4

Everson vs School Board

Back 4

Deals with:Religion/Establishment clause
Case: Parents being reimbursed by government the $$ they spent on sending their children to private religious schools.
Ruling: Okay b/c it provides services to everyone and the services are separate from the religion.

Front 5

Texas vs. Johnson

Back 5

Deals With: Symbolic Speech
Case: Johnson burned and American flag as a means of protest.
Ruling: Symbolic protest was protected under the 1st amendment.

Front 6

Lemon vs. Kurtzman

Back 6

Deals With: Establishment Clause
Case: Laws in RD and PA gave teachers affiliated with religious schools $$.
Ruling: Violated establishment clause.
NOTE: CREATED THE LEMON TEST

Front 7

Lemon Test

Back 7

1) Purpose must be secular and not religious
2) Primary effect must neither advocate nor inhibit religion
3) Avoids an "excessive entanglement" of government and religion

Front 8

Hate Speech

Back 8

Speech that has malicious intent and will cause violence and anger in people.
Note: R.A.V v Saint Paul; Wisconsin v Mitchell

Front 9

Obscenity Test

Back 9

1) The average person would find it w/ an obsessive interest in sex.
2) The work describes a type of sexual conduct forbidden by law.
3) The work lacks any artistic, literary, or scientific value.
Note: Miller v. California

Front 10

Fighting Words

Back 10

Words meant to cause anger and violence in other people.
Note: Chaplinsky v New Hampshire

Front 11

Free Exercise Clause

Back 11

Freedom to believe and freedom to practice; 1st Amendment- Freedom of Religion

Front 12

Establishment Clause

Back 12

The government cannot establish an official religion and/or endorse a religion; 1st Amendment- Freedom of Religion