Students’ freedom of speech and symbolic speech rights in schools. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in favor of Johnson. The high court agreed that symbolic speech – no matter how offensive to some – is protected under the First Amendment.
Question Does a conviction of threatening another person under 18 U. S. C. §875(c) require proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 8-1 decision in favor of Elonis.
In 1988, the Supreme Court, with one vacancy, handed down a 5-3 decision in favor of the school. The Court reversed the appellate court, and said that public schools do not have to allow student speech if it is inconsistent with the schools’ educational mission. Even if the government can’t censor such speech outside of school, public schools have the authority to limit that speech.
An arbitrary ruling. In not so many words what this says is that the youth who attend a free public school is nothing more than a slave who is to be controlled, that thinking for themselves is forbidden, someone else’s bias beliefs are forced upon anyone who believes or thinks different. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier perverted ruling and we condemn it.
Question Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment?
“Yes. Neither the prayer’s nondenominational character nor its voluntary character saves it from unconstitutionality. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion.”
Question Does the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 8-1 in favor of Phelps.
Question Does 18 U.S.C. 704(b), the Stolen Valor Act, violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?
Yes. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for a 6-3 majority, affirmed the Court of Appeals. Content-based restrictions on speech are subject to strict scrutiny and are almost always invalid, except in rare and extreme circumstances.
Question6-3 Decision for Lewis Held: The ordinance, as thus construed, is susceptible of application to protected speech, and therefore is overbroad in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and facially invalid.
In favor of Hill 8-1 decision Held: A municipal ordinance that makes it unlawful to interrupt a police officer in the performance of his duty is substantially overbroad and therefore invalid on its face under the First Amendment.
Lawson was frequently subjected to police questioning and harassment when he walked in white neighborhoods. Lawson challenged the California law “that requires persons who loiter or wander on the streets to provide a ‘credible and reliable’ identification and to account for their presence when requested by a peace officer.”
Question Is the California statute unconstitutionally vague?
The law was unconstitutionally vague because it gave excessive discretion to the police (in the absence of probable cause for an arrest) whether to stop and interrogate a suspect or leave him alone. The majority hinted that the California statute compromised the constitutional right to freedom of movement.
CLICK IMAGE BELOW
U S Supreme Court - San Diego ID Law - Kolender v. Lawson (461 U.S. 352, 1983)