COURT CASES - BACK TO SPEECH PAGE - BACK TO IDEX PAGE



COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT -- RENO V. ACLU

FLAG BURNING -- TEXAS V. JOHNSON

CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER -- SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES

ACTUAL MALICE -- NEW YORK TIMES V. SULLIVAN

IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION -- BRANDENBURG V. OHIO

 

BRANDENBURN V. OHIO 1969 SPEECH CAN BE LIMITED WHEN IT IS DESIGNED TO PRODUCE IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION FROM OTHERS.
NEW YORK TIME V. SULLIVAN 1964 TO ESTABLISH LIBEL AGAINST A PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR FIGURES/HE MUST PROVE *ACTUAL MALICE*.
RENO V. ACLU 1997 CAME ABOUT AS A RESULT OF THE INTERNET AND ITS IMPACT ON SPEECH. GOVERNMENT RESTRICTION OF PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIALS TO PROTECT CHILDREN TREADS ON THE RIGHTS OF ADULTS WHO WANT TO VIEW PORNOGRAPHY.
SCHENCK V. UNITED STATES 1919 WORDS THAT PRESENT A *CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER* TO OTHERS ARE NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED.
TEXAS V. JOHNSON 1989 DESECRATING THE FLAG IS CONSIDERED AN ACT OF FREE SPEECH AND IS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.


**KNOWING THAT SOMETHING IS FALSE** AND **IS RECKLESS IN DISREGARD** IS THE 2 THINGS NECESSARY TO PROVE *ACTUAL MALICE*.

ACCORDING TO TEXAS V. JOHNSON, FREE SPEECH DOES NOT END AT THE SPOKEN OR WRITTEN WORD.

In Brandenburg v. Ohio, a justice explains why someone can be prosecuted for faisely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Explain why it's unethical speech.