A barista at Starbucks using racist language
This is unconstitutional because it is classified as hate speech and can bring about bodily harm to anyone involved.
Wisconsin v. Mitchell http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_515
A student inciting other students to riot against the police
This is unconstitutional because it presents a clear and present danger of substantive evils. This is laid out by:
Schenck v. United States http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1918/1918_437
False advertisement by a shoe manufacturer
This is unconstitutional because it is not constitutional to mislead consumers or individuals with false information. As long as the advertising helps the individual learn truth about the product it is acceptable.
Bates v. State bar of Arizona http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_76_316
Protesting a marine's funeral by yelling "God Hates Fags" at the funeral.
This is constitutional because the first amendment shields protestors from liability while protesting at a funeral since it is in a public arena.
Snyder v. Phelps http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2010/2010_09_751
A clerk at Bojangle’s using fighting words with a customer
This is unconstitutional because it presents a clear and present danger for retaliation. It is also a form of provocative hate speech.
Schenck v. United States http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1918/1918_437
Wisconsin v. Mitchell http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_515
Hate Speech
This is constitutional as long as it isn’t disruptive and involves a primarily personal and private matter. Situations when it isn’t constitutional are when instigation of situations involving race etc. are involved.
Wisconsin v. Mitchell http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_515
Waters v. Chruchill http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1450
Burning a flag
This is constitutional because it is symbolic speech. As long as this symbolic speech does not serve as a threat or intimidation factor then it is protected by the first amendment
Texas v. Johnson http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_155
A male boss telling sexually explicit jokes to a female worker
This is unconstitutional because it is obscenity and that type of speech is not protected by the first amendment.
Roth v. United States http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_582
An anti abortion web site that lists the photos of abortion providers with Xs crossing out the doctors who have been assassinated.
This is constitutional as long as the individuals who are listed actually practice this type of medicine. In other words all the information has to be true with no malicious intent to the truth of the individuals.
New York Times v. Sullivan http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39
Answer all of the following questions:
What is speech?
Speech is the expression of thoughts or feelings through words or symbolic demonstrations.
What is the Clear and Present Danger Doctrine?
This doctrine states that government can limit the freedom of speech if it presents the clear and present danger to any outside individual.
Are there any lines of freedom of speech that you can not cross?
Your speech cannot present any clear or present danger to anyone, it cannot be used to intimidate or threaten, and it cannot falsely harm an individual’s reputation.
What is hate speech and what is the law regarding hate speech?
Hate speech is speech that attacks the gender, ethnicity, religion, disability, or sexual orientation. This is illegal since it can procure a violent response from the person being spoken to or being attacked.
This is unconstitutional because it is classified as hate speech and can bring about bodily harm to anyone involved.
Wisconsin v. Mitchell http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_515
A student inciting other students to riot against the police
This is unconstitutional because it presents a clear and present danger of substantive evils. This is laid out by:
Schenck v. United States http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1918/1918_437
False advertisement by a shoe manufacturer
This is unconstitutional because it is not constitutional to mislead consumers or individuals with false information. As long as the advertising helps the individual learn truth about the product it is acceptable.
Bates v. State bar of Arizona http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_76_316
Protesting a marine's funeral by yelling "God Hates Fags" at the funeral.
This is constitutional because the first amendment shields protestors from liability while protesting at a funeral since it is in a public arena.
Snyder v. Phelps http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2010/2010_09_751
A clerk at Bojangle’s using fighting words with a customer
This is unconstitutional because it presents a clear and present danger for retaliation. It is also a form of provocative hate speech.
Schenck v. United States http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1918/1918_437
Wisconsin v. Mitchell http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_515
Hate Speech
This is constitutional as long as it isn’t disruptive and involves a primarily personal and private matter. Situations when it isn’t constitutional are when instigation of situations involving race etc. are involved.
Wisconsin v. Mitchell http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_515
Waters v. Chruchill http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1993/1993_92_1450
Burning a flag
This is constitutional because it is symbolic speech. As long as this symbolic speech does not serve as a threat or intimidation factor then it is protected by the first amendment
Texas v. Johnson http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1988/1988_88_155
A male boss telling sexually explicit jokes to a female worker
This is unconstitutional because it is obscenity and that type of speech is not protected by the first amendment.
Roth v. United States http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_582
An anti abortion web site that lists the photos of abortion providers with Xs crossing out the doctors who have been assassinated.
This is constitutional as long as the individuals who are listed actually practice this type of medicine. In other words all the information has to be true with no malicious intent to the truth of the individuals.
New York Times v. Sullivan http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1963/1963_39
Answer all of the following questions:
What is speech?
Speech is the expression of thoughts or feelings through words or symbolic demonstrations.
What is the Clear and Present Danger Doctrine?
This doctrine states that government can limit the freedom of speech if it presents the clear and present danger to any outside individual.
Are there any lines of freedom of speech that you can not cross?
Your speech cannot present any clear or present danger to anyone, it cannot be used to intimidate or threaten, and it cannot falsely harm an individual’s reputation.
What is hate speech and what is the law regarding hate speech?
Hate speech is speech that attacks the gender, ethnicity, religion, disability, or sexual orientation. This is illegal since it can procure a violent response from the person being spoken to or being attacked.