JMC2600: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION MIDTERM
EXAM CASE REVIEW
Ali v. Playgirl (S.D. NY 1978) - Answers - Using a person's likeness in a magazine
without his consent triggered a claim to enjoin publication of that magazine under the
law of equity.
U.S. v. O'Brien (1968) - Answers - decision of the United States Supreme Court, ruling
that a criminal prohibition against burning a draft card did not violate the First
Amendment's guarantee of free speech.
Snyder v. Phelps (2011) - Answers - Speech on a public sidewalk, about a public issue,
is protected, even if the speech is found to be "outrageous" and causes emotional
distress.
Texas v. Johnson (1989) - Answers - Struck down Texas law that banned flag burning,
which is a protected form of symbolic speech.
Clark v. CCNV (1984) - Answers - A federal regulation prohibiting camping overnight on
the National Mall was considered a constitutional, content-neutral regulation of
expression.
Marsh v. Alabama (1946) - Answers - A company town, where the company is basically
functioning as the government, has to recognize individuals' rights as a govt would
(including 14)
14th Amdt
Knight v. Trump (2nd Cir. 2019) - Answers - The president's Twitter account is a
designated public forum, and thus blocking users from posting to that account violates
their First Amendment rights.
NetChoice v. Paxton (5th Cir. 2022) - Answers - In NetChoice v. Paxton, the 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an injunction against a new Texas law that barred
social media companies from censoring speech based on the viewpoint of the user.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) - Answers - speech that does not call for illegal action is
protected, and even speech that does call for illegal action is protected if the action is
not "imminent" or there is reason to believe that the listeners will not take action
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) - Answers - Religious speech is protected, even from
door to door, and cannot be regulated, as it would violate the 1st and 14th amendments
, Edwards v. South Carolina (1963) - Answers - Ruled that the 14th Amendment does not
permit a state to prohibit the peaceful expression of unpopular views.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) - Answers - "Fighting words" are not protected by
the First Amendment
Watts v. US (1969) - Answers - Petitioner's remark during political debate at small public
gathering that if inducted into Army (which he vowed would never occur) and made to
carry a rifle "the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.," held to be crude political
hyperbole which in light of its context and conditional nature did not constitute a
knowing and willful threat against the President.
Virginia v. Black (2003) - Answers - Freedom of Expression; Declares cross burning is
protected by the First Amendment as long as the act does not have the intent to
intimidate.
Missouri v. Biden (5th Cir. 2023) - Answers - he Fifth Circuit ruled upheld the district
court ruling against the Biden Administration. The court found that some of the
communications between the federal government and the social media companies to try
to fight alleged COVID-19 misinformation "coerced or significantly encouraged social
media platforms to moderate content", which violated the First Amendment.
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) - Answers - Guaranteed a student's right to protest
(wearing armbands).
Easton Area School District v. B.H. (3rd Cir. en banc 2013) - Answers - November 14,
2010, on behalf of two Easton Area School District (EASD) students claiming that
EASD's ban on wearing rubber bracelets with the phrase "I ♥ Boobies! (Keep A Breast)"
violates the girls' First Amendment right to free speech
Mahanoy School District v. B.L. (1988) - Answers - tried out for and failed to make her
high school's varsity cheerleading team, making instead only the junior varsity team.
Over a weekend and away from school, she posted a picture of herself on Snapchat
with the caption "F@ck school f@ck softball fu@ck cheer f@ck everything."
(1) that her suspension from the team violated the First Amendment; (2) that the school
and team rules were overbroad and viewpoint discriminatory; and (3) that those rules
were unconstitutionally vague
Papish v. Board of Curators (1973) - Answers - A public university punishing a student
for violating a student code of conduct by distributing an explicit magazine was
unconstitutional. (Mizzou)
Tatro v. U. of Minnesota (Minn. Sup. Ct. 2012) - Answers - The Supreme Court of
Minnesota affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the university did not violate
EXAM CASE REVIEW
Ali v. Playgirl (S.D. NY 1978) - Answers - Using a person's likeness in a magazine
without his consent triggered a claim to enjoin publication of that magazine under the
law of equity.
U.S. v. O'Brien (1968) - Answers - decision of the United States Supreme Court, ruling
that a criminal prohibition against burning a draft card did not violate the First
Amendment's guarantee of free speech.
Snyder v. Phelps (2011) - Answers - Speech on a public sidewalk, about a public issue,
is protected, even if the speech is found to be "outrageous" and causes emotional
distress.
Texas v. Johnson (1989) - Answers - Struck down Texas law that banned flag burning,
which is a protected form of symbolic speech.
Clark v. CCNV (1984) - Answers - A federal regulation prohibiting camping overnight on
the National Mall was considered a constitutional, content-neutral regulation of
expression.
Marsh v. Alabama (1946) - Answers - A company town, where the company is basically
functioning as the government, has to recognize individuals' rights as a govt would
(including 14)
14th Amdt
Knight v. Trump (2nd Cir. 2019) - Answers - The president's Twitter account is a
designated public forum, and thus blocking users from posting to that account violates
their First Amendment rights.
NetChoice v. Paxton (5th Cir. 2022) - Answers - In NetChoice v. Paxton, the 5th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an injunction against a new Texas law that barred
social media companies from censoring speech based on the viewpoint of the user.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) - Answers - speech that does not call for illegal action is
protected, and even speech that does call for illegal action is protected if the action is
not "imminent" or there is reason to believe that the listeners will not take action
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) - Answers - Religious speech is protected, even from
door to door, and cannot be regulated, as it would violate the 1st and 14th amendments
, Edwards v. South Carolina (1963) - Answers - Ruled that the 14th Amendment does not
permit a state to prohibit the peaceful expression of unpopular views.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) - Answers - "Fighting words" are not protected by
the First Amendment
Watts v. US (1969) - Answers - Petitioner's remark during political debate at small public
gathering that if inducted into Army (which he vowed would never occur) and made to
carry a rifle "the first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.," held to be crude political
hyperbole which in light of its context and conditional nature did not constitute a
knowing and willful threat against the President.
Virginia v. Black (2003) - Answers - Freedom of Expression; Declares cross burning is
protected by the First Amendment as long as the act does not have the intent to
intimidate.
Missouri v. Biden (5th Cir. 2023) - Answers - he Fifth Circuit ruled upheld the district
court ruling against the Biden Administration. The court found that some of the
communications between the federal government and the social media companies to try
to fight alleged COVID-19 misinformation "coerced or significantly encouraged social
media platforms to moderate content", which violated the First Amendment.
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) - Answers - Guaranteed a student's right to protest
(wearing armbands).
Easton Area School District v. B.H. (3rd Cir. en banc 2013) - Answers - November 14,
2010, on behalf of two Easton Area School District (EASD) students claiming that
EASD's ban on wearing rubber bracelets with the phrase "I ♥ Boobies! (Keep A Breast)"
violates the girls' First Amendment right to free speech
Mahanoy School District v. B.L. (1988) - Answers - tried out for and failed to make her
high school's varsity cheerleading team, making instead only the junior varsity team.
Over a weekend and away from school, she posted a picture of herself on Snapchat
with the caption "F@ck school f@ck softball fu@ck cheer f@ck everything."
(1) that her suspension from the team violated the First Amendment; (2) that the school
and team rules were overbroad and viewpoint discriminatory; and (3) that those rules
were unconstitutionally vague
Papish v. Board of Curators (1973) - Answers - A public university punishing a student
for violating a student code of conduct by distributing an explicit magazine was
unconstitutional. (Mizzou)
Tatro v. U. of Minnesota (Minn. Sup. Ct. 2012) - Answers - The Supreme Court of
Minnesota affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the university did not violate
