Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

aa. Court Cases

No description
by

NolenBelle Bryant

on 7 March 2014

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of aa. Court Cases

U.S. Supreme Court Cases
Speech and Expression
Speech and Expression Court Cases
By: Nolen Bryant, Avilene Chavez, Karla Castrejon, Jazmin Penado, and Anayely Moreno
NY Times v. U.S. (Pentagon Papers)
1971
Schenck v. U.S. (1919)
Charles T. Schenck was part of the Socialist Party. He was distributing provocative flyers to draftees of World War I. He said it violated the 13th Amendment because it was a form of slavery and forced service. He also violated the Espionage Act.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
Johnson was charged with violating the
Texas law
that prohibits vandalizing respected objects- he had burnned the American flag for symbolism during a protest. The highest court in Texas, The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals,overturned his conviction, saying that the State could not punish Johnson for burning the flag because the First Amendment protects such activity as symbolic speech. The State had said that its interests were more important than Johnson's symbolic speech rights because it wanted to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity, and because it wanted to maintain order. The court said neither of these state interests could be used to justify Johnson's conviction. The court also concluded that the flag burning in this case did not cause or threaten to cause a breach of the peace. Texas then asked the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case.

U.S. v. Eichman (1990)
Eichman and others were prosecuted under the federal Flag Protection Act for burning American flags. The case went to courts in Washington State and the District of Columbia, both of which agreed that the Act violated the First Ammendment.
Tinker v. Des Moines School District
(1969)
The End
Hey guys,
so this is the prezi. I made a page for everyone so that it could stay organized. Just click on the boxes on the far left to go from page to page.

The constiturional issue was that of freedom of speech, symbolic speech, and expression. Texas did have a state law which protected the flag as a 'venerated object'. It became a debat over which law had precedent and a first ammendment issue- also an argument over if his actions had been expressive or disruptive.
The vote came down as a controversial 5-4 decision with a concurrence
The Court's decision invalidated laws in force in 48 of the 50 states. More than two decades later, the issue remains controversial; recent polls suggest that a majority of Americans still support a ban on flag-burning. Congress did, however, pass a statute, the 1989 Flag Protection Act, making it a federal crime to desecrate the flag.
The case deals with the First Amendment. It was built on the opinion handed down from Texas vs. Johnson.
The ruling was a 5-4 decision with Brenna, Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, and Kennedy on the Majority.
RULING
The government's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol did not outweigh the individual right to disparage that symbol through expressive conduct.
Siblings, John and Mary Beth Tinker and friend, Christopher Eckhardt agreed to wear armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. When the school officials heard of tjis they said they'd suspend anyone who wore them. The students were suspended until after January 1,1966. A suit was filed with the help of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU.
The District Court sided with the Des Moines school board. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit had a tie vote which meant that the U.S. District Court's decision continued to stand.
The students believed that it was a violation of their rights under the First Amendment.
The case ended with a 7-2 vote in favor of the students. Judges Fortas, joined by Warren, Douglas, Brennan, White, Marshall were in the majority with Stewart and White on the concurrence.
Ruling
The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, did not permit a public school to punish a student for wearing a black armband as an anti-war protest, absent any evidence that the rule was necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others. Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded.
He was found guilty on original trial, and then was appealed because he claimed the US had sparked slave-like laws.( violating the 13th Amendment)
Although the Pentagon Papers were never meant to be published, Daniel Ellsberg leaked the information in hopes of getting the United States out of the war. Releasing this information violated the espionage act.
The ruling is generally considered a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment.
the Supreme Court decision was 6-3
The Supreme Court agreed with the two lower courts, which had originally decided that the government had not met its "heavy burden" of showing a justification for a prior restraint. The Court issued a very brief per curiam opinion, stating only that the Court concurred with the decisions of the two lower courts to reject the Government’s request for an injunction. There was no exclusive verdict, but the case has been used to add precedent to the 1st amendment, which has helped in other case rulings.
The Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier decision took place on January 13, 1988.
A class of journalism students in Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis produced a school sponsored and funded newspaper called the Spectrum. One issue had stories on teen pregnancy and divorce. The school's principal thought the stories were inappropriate and before publication of the paper, he deleted the two pages containing the stories without telling the journalism students. The students were upset because they had not been given the opportunity to make changes, and because several other articles were also deleted when the pages were removed. The students felt their First Amendment rights had been violated
The students took their case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The court sided with the school, ruling that the school had the authority to remove the articles written as part of the school's curriculum. The students appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The appeals court reversed the lower court, finding that the paper was a "public forum" and that school officials could censor its content only under extreme circumstances. Unhappy with the ruling, the school appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

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.

In order for the school to not have the right to censor the paper, the Journalism students had to be considered a public forum. It means that they are not under prior review by the administrators or the principal. If it was a school sponsored expression then the school would have the ability to censor and deem it inappropriate.
Decided on March 3, 1919
This case applies to the 1st amendment freedom of speech and expression.
Unanimous 9:0 for US
Defendant's criticism of the draft was not protected by the First Amendment, because it created a clear and present danger to the enlistment and recruiting service of the U.S. armed forces during a state of war.
Full transcript