Heimlich History - Unit 3: Protection of Freedom of Speech

Overview

• Topic: Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment regarding individual liberty, focusing on free speech.
• Key question: Extent of the Supreme Court's commitment to individual liberty through the First Amendment.
• Free speech is not absolute; there are limitations.

Supreme Court Cases

Required Cases

1. Tinker vs. Des Moines (1969)
   • Context: Students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.
   • Issue: School prohibited armbands, citing disruption.
   • Supreme Court Decision: Upheld students' rights as the protest was symbolic and caused no actual disruption.

Non-Required Cases

2. Morse v. Frederick (2007)

   • Context: Student displayed a sign saying "Bong Hits for Jesus" at a school event.
   • Supreme Court Decision: Suspension upheld; sign promoted illegal drug use with no redeeming value.

3. West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett (1943)

   • Context: Mandatory flag salute for students and teachers.
   • Issue: Jehovah's Witnesses opposed due to religious beliefs.
   • Supreme Court Decision: Agreed with Jehovah's Witnesses; compulsory symbolic acts can't be enforced.

Balancing Individual Freedom and Social Order

• Tinker and West Virginia cases emphasize individual freedom.
• Morse and Schenck vs. the United States emphasize social order.

Guidelines for Free Speech

1. Time, Place, and Manner Regulations

   • Content-neutral regulations.
   • Restrict when, where, and how speech is delivered, not its content.

2. Defamatory, Offensive, and Obscene Speech

   • Defamation harms others and is usually not protected.
   • Example: Dominion Voting Systems' defamation lawsuits after the 2020 election.
   • Offensive speech has a high threshold for government intervention.

3. Clear and Present Danger Rule

   • Speech can be silenced if it poses a danger.
   • Example: Schenck vs. the United States (1919)
     • Schenck distributed anti-draft pamphlets during WWI.
     • Supreme Court upheld his conviction, citing danger to society.
   • Note: The clear and present danger test has been replaced by the Brandenburg Test in the 1960s, making censorship more difficult.

Conclusion

• Understanding these cases and rules helps in evaluating how the Supreme Court balances individual liberty with societal needs.
• Encourage further study with a view packet for AP Government exams.
• Subscription reminder for more educational content.