Constitutional Topics: The 1st and 2nd Amendment (Personal Freedoms)

1. Constitutional Topics: The 1st and 2nd Amendment (Personal Freedoms) By: Isaura, Ally, Mason, Toria, Abby, Logan, and Paige

2. Freedom of speech- means that someone's right to say something is protected within certain limits. A person may have to suffer consequences for saying some things, but they still have the right to say them. For example, it is against the law to yell, "FIRE," in a crowded place because someone may get injured. 1st Amendment Court Cases: • Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire- “Fighting words” • Near v. Minnesota- “Restrictions on freedom and the press” • Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier- “Restrictions on freedom and press” • Tinker v. DesMoines School District- “Restrictions on freedom and expression” • Engle v. Vitale- “Religion in Public Education”

3. Freedom from religion- the government cannot prevent individuals from practicing their chosen religion, whatever it may be. However, there are some limits on this protection. For example, if your religion requires you to take illegal drugs, or to sacrifice animals in violation of local laws, those laws can still be enforced against you, as long as they were meant to be applied generally, and were not passed with the express purpose of preventing religious practices. 1st Amendment Court Cases Continued: • Lemon v. Kurtzman- “Government aid to church related schools” • Schenck v. United States- “Clear and present danger & speech” • Texas v. Johnston- “Symbolic speech” • Morse v. Frederick- “Free speech & public school students” • Miller v. California- “Obscenity test”

4. Freedom of religion- the federal government cannot set an official religion of the United States. This was meant to prevent the government being unduly influenced by the religious beliefs of one particular faith, and to prevent it from becoming entangled in religion, which the founders believed to be essentially a private matter. The government can't even do anything that favors one religion over any other.

5. Freedom of assembly-all American citizens have the right to peaceably assemble, even if the views that group holds is "unpopular". However, the government may prevent a rally from taking place if it can demonstrate that a non-preventable evil will result if the rally is held. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

6. Freedom of the press- is the right to print or publish something without governmental interference, though there are restrictions, which lead to punishments if dishonored. The freedom of the press secures the freedom of the media-men/ journalists to write their ideas, opinions, or point of views.

7. Freedom of petition-you have the right to disagree with the government and to let them know. You can complain about what the government is doing-- you can protest, march, demonstrate, vote for somebody else ... and you cannot be punished for expressing your anti-government views, as long as you do so peacefully.

8. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) “Fighting words” are words that cause a direct harm to their target and can be construed to advocate an immediate breach of the peace Argued:February 5, 1942Decided:March 9, 1942 Defendant: Walter Chaplinsky Plaintiff: New Hampshire

9. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) Facts: Walter Chaplinsky was a Jehovah’s Witness. He was walking down a public street in downtown Rochester near City Hall, distributing religious literature. When confronted, he called the town marshall a “...racketeer” and a “...Fascist and the whole government of Rochester are Fascists or agents of Fascists.”

10. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) Facts (continued): Chaplinsky was convicted for violation of Chapter 378 Section 2 of the Public Laws of New Hampshire. New Hampshire charged Chaplinsky because he unlawfully spoke offensive, derisive, and annoying words and names.

11. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) Issue: Did Chaplinsky’s conviction violate the First Amendment? Holding: Chaplinsky was found guilty under the state statute banning offensive words to others in public. The Supreme court of New Hampshire confirmed this ruling following a Trial de Novo (new trial)where Chaplinsky appealed.

12. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) Holding (continued): Chaplinsky argued that the state statute was invalid under the 1st Amendment because it placed an unreasonable restraint on freedom of speech, press, and worship. The court, however, passed the Fighting Words Doctrine which placed a limitation on the First Amendment’s guarantee of Freedom of Speech.

13. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) Holding (continued): Additionally, the court said that states have the right to use their police power to curb their expression in the interests of maintaining order. Reasoning: The court said that the constitutional right to freedom of speech is not absolute. “Fighting Words” tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, so they are an exception to the First Amendment.

14. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGytC4zNywcl

15. Near vs. Minnesota (1931) “Restrictions on Freedom of the Press” Argued: Jan 30, 1931 Decided: Jun 1, 1931 Defendant: State of Minnesota Plaintiff: J. M. Near

16. Near vs. Minnesota (1931) Facts: P, the publisher of the newspaper The Saturday Press newspaper, which was an anti-Semitic paper that claimed Jewish gangs were ruling the city. The paper also claimed that the grand jury of Hennepin County was incompetent or unwilling to prosecute and investigate some known criminal activity.

17. Near vs. Minnesota (1931) Facts (con’t): D claimed that under the Minnesota State Public Nuisance Law of 1925, which claimed that the paper was a “public nuisance” by being a “malicious, scandalous, and defamatory newspaper.” And D wanted P to stop publishing the paper.

18. Near vs. Minnesota (1931) Issue: Is P allowed to publish his paper under first amendment freedom of the press? Holding/Ruling: The court says that censorship of the press is unconstitutional.

19. Near vs. Minnesota (1931) Reasoning: It was in violation of the 14th Amendment, which incorporated the 1st Amendment rights and liberties to the states.

20. Near vs. Minnesota (1931)

21. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) “Restrictions on freedom of the press” Argued: Oct. 13,1987 Decided: Jan. 13, 1988 Defendant: Kuhlmeier Plaintiff: Hazelwood East High School

22. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Facts: Students who attended at Hazelwood East High School were in charge of running the school newspaper. They wanted to submit articles pertaining to stories on divorce and teen pregnancy. In the pregnancy article the student’s name was changed but the principal was concerned that students would recognize who would it be.

23. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Facts: However, the principal deleted the articles without their permission since it was inappropriate. Therefore, the journalist students brought the suit to the U.S District Court of Missouri indicating that their right to freedom of press was being violated.

24. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Issue: Does the principal preventing articles from being published violate the student journalists’ First Amendment right of freedom of press?

25. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Holding: The U.S Supreme Court ruled that the principal deleting the articles did not violate the student’s freedom of press.

26. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Reasoning: The newspaper was being sponsored by the school. Therefore, they have the legitimate right to prevent the publication of articles that are considered inappropriate and that interfere with school motives.

27. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Reasoning: The U.S Supreme Court noted that the newspaper was not intended to be a public forum; where everyone shares their views. They were required to type articles pertaining to the class. Video

28. Engle v. Vitale (1962) Facts D directed school district’s principle to cause a prayer to be said aloud in class at the beginning of the school day. P insists that the use of official prayer in the public schools was contrary to the beliefs, religions, or religious practices of themselves and their children.

29. Engle v. Vitale, Cont. Facts P also insisted that this was violating the part of the First Amendment that commands “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. D thinks it should be ok as long as students aren’t forced to participate in the prayer.

30. Engle v. Vitale, Cont. Issue Does D have the right to enact a prayer to be said in public schools?

31. Engle v. Vitale, Cont. Holding No, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the state.

32. Engle v. Vitale, Cont. Reasoning Court said that the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law “respecting an establishment of religion” is made applicable to the states by the 14th Amendment.

33. Engle v. Vitale, Cont. Reasoning, Cont. Therefore, state officials cannot compose an official state prayer and require that it be said. Even if the students aren’t required to say it and have the option to go to another room, an official prayer is unconstitutional because of the First Amendment.

34. Engle v. Vitale, Cont. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKB45t7KNk8

35. Tinker vs. Des Moines School District “Restriction on Freedom of Expression” Argued: Nov 12, 1968 Decided: Feb 24, 1969 Defendant: Des Moines Independent Community School District Plaintiff: John F. Tinker and Mary Beth Tinker, minors, by their father and next friend, Leonard Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt, minor, by his father and next friend, William Eckhardt

36. Tinker vs. Des Moines School District Facts: P, representing students from Des Moines, Iowa, decided to wear an armband to school in protest of the Vietnamese War, in support of the Christmas Treaty that was proposed. Upon learning of this plan, D put policies in place to ask students who were wearing the armband to remove it immediately.

37. Tinker vs. Des Moines School District Facts: P decided to violate this policy, which meant that they were suspended and not allowed to return until they complied with the policy.

38. Tinker vs. Des Moines School District Issue: Does P have the right to protest at school? Holding/Ruling: In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that the First Amendment does apply to public schools.

39. Tinker vs. Des Moines School District Reasoning: The court observed, "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." The court said that said said that the policy was only put in place to avoid controversy, which is still censorship of free speech.

40. Tinker vs. Des Moines School District Reasoning: The court also said that the only circumstance that this may be allowed is if that the action that would "materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school."

41. Tinker vs. Des Moines School District

42. Lemon V. Kurtzman(1971): Facts The state of Pennsylvania, the defendant, passed a law that allowed the local government to use money to fund educational programs that taught religious-based lessons. Rhode Island's 1969 Salary Supplement Act provided that the state could supplement 15% of the teachers salaries who taught secular subjects at non public, or religious schools.

43. Lemon v. Kurtzman: Facts 25% attended non-public schools, 95% attendance were from Roman Catholic schools, and 250 teachers are sole benefactors under the act. Alton Lemon argued that the money received to the non public schools was a direct violation of church and states and he wanted the funding to stop. He stated that it involved excessive entanglement between government and religion.

44. Lemon v. Kurtzman The District Court found that the Act did not violate the Establishment or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. The Plaintiffs appealed and the case was brought before the Supreme Court.Plaintiffs, citizens and taxpayers of Rhode Island, brought suit against the State of Rhode Island to have the 1969 Salary Supplement Act declared unconstitutional.

45. Lemon v. Kurtzman:

46. Lemon v. Kurtzman Issue: Is funding from the government able to go to religious schools? Holding: NO! It is a direct violation of of the constitution.

47. Lemon V. Kurtzman: Reasoning The states law was a direct violation of the constitution which does not allow religions from benefiting from state laws. It basically violated the establishment and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.The Court emphasized that religion must be a private matter for the individual, the family, and the institutions of private choice, and that, while some involvement and entanglement are inevitable, lines must be drawn.

48. Lemon V. Kurtzman: Effect: The Lemon Test A classification system that is used to see whether or not state laws regarding funding or creating religious institutions with public money violate the united states constitution. It prevents the federal government from becoming overly religious or involved in particular religious institutions.

49. Lemon V. Kurtzman: Steps of the Lemon Test: • First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; • Second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion • Finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

50. Schenck v. United States Facts: The Schenck v United States court case created a precedent that allowed for strict interpretation of the Espionage Act of 1917. This case is considered to be the first case to truly define the limits of the first amendment.