CJE Exam
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1942) - Answer-BOE required teachers and students
to salute flag. Refusal to salute was considered insubordination, punishable by expulsion and charges of
delinquency. In 6-to-3 decision, Court overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and
held that compelling public schoolchildren to salute the flag was unconstitutional. The Court found that
such a salute was a form of utterance and was a means of communicating ideas.
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) - Answer-This U.S. Supreme Court case extended the First
Amendment's guarantee of free speech to libel cases brought by public officials. The Supreme Court
sought to encourage public debate by changing the rules involving libel that had previously been the
province of state law and state courts, and that a public official cannot receive damages unless
statements were made in "actual malice."
LB. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner responsible for supervising the city police department,
filed a libel suit against four African American clergymen and the New York Times in Alabama state
court, alleging an ad seeking contributions to the civil rights movement libeled him. The judge instructed
the jury that under Alabama law, if the statements were found libelous, falsity and malice were
presumed, and damages could be awarded without direct proof of financial loss. The jury concluded that
the statements did concern Sullivan and awarded him $500,000 for injuries to his reputation and
profession. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Rule of Law applied by Alabama violated
the First Amendment.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1968) - Answer-Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, made a speech at a Klan rally
and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating "crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political
,reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." The Court's opinion held that the Ohio law violated
Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1)
speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is
"likely to incite or produce such action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and
teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent
lawless action. Failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the
Constitution.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District - 1969 - Answer-The Supreme Court
decision declared students' First Amendment rights did not stop at the school door. They had the right
to express their political views, in this particular case with black arm bands as a protest of the Vietnam
War, as long as the expression did not disrupt class work or disrupt the rights of others.
Bethel School District v. Fraser- (1986) - Answer-Matthew Fraser made a nominating speech at an
assembly, lewd and sexual in nature, and he was disciplined. The Court ruled the school was within its
right to prohibit vulgar language at school. The court declared that vulgar speech is not politically
protected speech.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeiern 1988 - Answer-this case established standard for censorship of school
newspapers. The Court ruled school officials could exercise prior restraint if/when a student newspaper
was produced as a "regular classroom activity" rather than a "forum for public expression." That
standard means that most high school papers now are assumed not to have First Amendment
protections, while most college newspapers are. The case began when the principal pulled two articles
from the school newspaper, one on divorce and one on teen pregnancy.
Texas v. Johnson (1989) - Answer-In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an
American flag to protest Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas
law outlawing flag desecration. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the
case went to the Supreme Court. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that Johnson's burning of a flag was
protected expression under the First Amendment. The Court found that Johnson's actions fell into the
category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature.
Yeo. v. Town of Lexington (1998) - Answer-The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously
ruled that student journalists have the right to refuse ads submitted to their publications. This case
, demonstrates the importance of a school publication with public forum status. The case arose when
student yearbook/newspaper editors at Lexington High School in Massachusetts refused to print an ad
submitted by Douglas Yeo in 1992 encouraging sexual abstinence by students. The student publications
had an unwritten policy of not accepting political or advocacy ads, but did offer Yeo to present his
message in a letter to the editor. Yeo turned that down. Students and school officials maintained the
school's policy and practice had been to allow students to control the content of their publications.
Dean v. Utica (2004) - Answer-This case reflects limits to the Hazelwood decision. Students were about
to publish a story in their student newspaper, the Arrow, about a lawsuit filed against their school
district concerning the ill effects of diesel fumes from the bus garage. As the paper was to go to press,
school officials told the adviser it could not be published. Editor Katy Dean contested the censorship.
The court concluded the Arrow was a public forum, and even if the paper was a non-public forum to
which the Hazelwood standard applied, the court ruled that the censorship of the Arrow was
unreasonable.
Morse v. Frederick - (2006) - Answer-At a school-supervised event, Joseph Frederick held up a banner
with the message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." Principal Deborah Morse took away the banner and suspended
Frederick for 10 days. The court ruled in 2006 school officials can prohibit students from displaying
messages that promote illegal drug use.
Censorship - Answer-Administration or others in authority outside the publications staff banning
publication of certain stories or items.
Prior review - Answer-Administration or others in authority outside the publications staff reading to
review all stories and items in the publication prior to print.
Forum publication - Answer-A school publication that has been designated as a public forum for student
expression - also, student editors must clearly have been allowed to make final decisions about the
content of the publication
Public Forum - Answer-Hazelwood's weaker protections do not apply to all public high school student
media. There are two types of school-sponsored student media: so-called "public forum" student media
(which includes "limited public forums," such as the Arrow), where student editors have, by policy or
practice, been allowed to make their own editorial decisions, and non-public, where school officials have
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1942) - Answer-BOE required teachers and students
to salute flag. Refusal to salute was considered insubordination, punishable by expulsion and charges of
delinquency. In 6-to-3 decision, Court overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis and
held that compelling public schoolchildren to salute the flag was unconstitutional. The Court found that
such a salute was a form of utterance and was a means of communicating ideas.
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) - Answer-This U.S. Supreme Court case extended the First
Amendment's guarantee of free speech to libel cases brought by public officials. The Supreme Court
sought to encourage public debate by changing the rules involving libel that had previously been the
province of state law and state courts, and that a public official cannot receive damages unless
statements were made in "actual malice."
LB. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner responsible for supervising the city police department,
filed a libel suit against four African American clergymen and the New York Times in Alabama state
court, alleging an ad seeking contributions to the civil rights movement libeled him. The judge instructed
the jury that under Alabama law, if the statements were found libelous, falsity and malice were
presumed, and damages could be awarded without direct proof of financial loss. The jury concluded that
the statements did concern Sullivan and awarded him $500,000 for injuries to his reputation and
profession. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Rule of Law applied by Alabama violated
the First Amendment.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1968) - Answer-Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, made a speech at a Klan rally
and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating "crime,
sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political
,reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or
advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." The Court's opinion held that the Ohio law violated
Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1)
speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is
"likely to incite or produce such action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and
teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent
lawless action. Failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the
Constitution.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District - 1969 - Answer-The Supreme Court
decision declared students' First Amendment rights did not stop at the school door. They had the right
to express their political views, in this particular case with black arm bands as a protest of the Vietnam
War, as long as the expression did not disrupt class work or disrupt the rights of others.
Bethel School District v. Fraser- (1986) - Answer-Matthew Fraser made a nominating speech at an
assembly, lewd and sexual in nature, and he was disciplined. The Court ruled the school was within its
right to prohibit vulgar language at school. The court declared that vulgar speech is not politically
protected speech.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeiern 1988 - Answer-this case established standard for censorship of school
newspapers. The Court ruled school officials could exercise prior restraint if/when a student newspaper
was produced as a "regular classroom activity" rather than a "forum for public expression." That
standard means that most high school papers now are assumed not to have First Amendment
protections, while most college newspapers are. The case began when the principal pulled two articles
from the school newspaper, one on divorce and one on teen pregnancy.
Texas v. Johnson (1989) - Answer-In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an
American flag to protest Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas
law outlawing flag desecration. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the
case went to the Supreme Court. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that Johnson's burning of a flag was
protected expression under the First Amendment. The Court found that Johnson's actions fell into the
category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature.
Yeo. v. Town of Lexington (1998) - Answer-The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit unanimously
ruled that student journalists have the right to refuse ads submitted to their publications. This case
, demonstrates the importance of a school publication with public forum status. The case arose when
student yearbook/newspaper editors at Lexington High School in Massachusetts refused to print an ad
submitted by Douglas Yeo in 1992 encouraging sexual abstinence by students. The student publications
had an unwritten policy of not accepting political or advocacy ads, but did offer Yeo to present his
message in a letter to the editor. Yeo turned that down. Students and school officials maintained the
school's policy and practice had been to allow students to control the content of their publications.
Dean v. Utica (2004) - Answer-This case reflects limits to the Hazelwood decision. Students were about
to publish a story in their student newspaper, the Arrow, about a lawsuit filed against their school
district concerning the ill effects of diesel fumes from the bus garage. As the paper was to go to press,
school officials told the adviser it could not be published. Editor Katy Dean contested the censorship.
The court concluded the Arrow was a public forum, and even if the paper was a non-public forum to
which the Hazelwood standard applied, the court ruled that the censorship of the Arrow was
unreasonable.
Morse v. Frederick - (2006) - Answer-At a school-supervised event, Joseph Frederick held up a banner
with the message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." Principal Deborah Morse took away the banner and suspended
Frederick for 10 days. The court ruled in 2006 school officials can prohibit students from displaying
messages that promote illegal drug use.
Censorship - Answer-Administration or others in authority outside the publications staff banning
publication of certain stories or items.
Prior review - Answer-Administration or others in authority outside the publications staff reading to
review all stories and items in the publication prior to print.
Forum publication - Answer-A school publication that has been designated as a public forum for student
expression - also, student editors must clearly have been allowed to make final decisions about the
content of the publication
Public Forum - Answer-Hazelwood's weaker protections do not apply to all public high school student
media. There are two types of school-sponsored student media: so-called "public forum" student media
(which includes "limited public forums," such as the Arrow), where student editors have, by policy or
practice, been allowed to make their own editorial decisions, and non-public, where school officials have
